Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I'm trying to make larger points, and all you're responding with is "SEC BAD!" like Frankenstein's monster. 

I think the issue with Alabama, specifically, is that we're all aware of recruiting info.  We know they have the most 5* kids.  We know they have backups that would be starting elsewhere.  That's why they, specifically, get the benefit of the doubt.  It's less about being in the SEC and more about being so talented (on paper).

And again - it's not that their loss to and SEC team keeps them alive for the playoff, it's that their loss was by 1 score to what is likely going to be the #1 team.  That's quite logically the best loss a team can have.  Still a loss, yes, but the most quality loss possible.  Why is it so outrageous to cite that?

You weren't trying to make larger points.  You came in hot with "Alabama would be the best one loss team".  I'm paraphrasing, but you said it.  And recruiting info doesn't matter either.  I can't understand how you think that should be a determining factor at all.

Best loss isn't going to be the factor for who makes the last spot or two.  It's going to come down to who these teams beat.  And Alabama is going to have basically no good wins.  They had LSU in Tuscaloosa and they couldn't pull it off.  Tough break.  If OSU loses to Penn State and misses out on the Big Ten Championship....you're unlikely to hear cries about how they deserve the fourth spot.  There was a really good shot that PSU and OSU were both going to be undefeated going into that game....and a good shot that it could happen again next year.

Texas also lost by one score.  Alabama didn't do the unthinkable.  Like I said....Sugar or Orange Bowl for them.

First I want to say that I generally agree with @OrangeAfroMan in this thread. 

Second, in response to @RestingB!tchFace , I want to point something out:  Voters and pundits aren't just picking on Minnesota.  To read some of your posts here, it seems you think that they are.  It isn't that.  It is about level of expectation and who you are being compared to. 

When you think about Minnesota compared to the expectation for this year, they look great. 

When you think about Minnesota compared to Rutgers they look great. 

When you think about Minnesota compared to Ohio State, they look pretty good I guess, but not great. 

To try to put this another way:  If Ohio State had Minnesota's exact schedule/results from so far this year, people wouldn't be talking about how great the Buckeyes are, they'd be asking what the heck is wrong with the Buckeyes. 

Minnesota's overall resume, even with the PSU win, still isn't that great.  They have a bunch of too-close wins over mediocre-to-bad opposition some pretty good wins, and one quality win by one score at home. 

That doesn't mean that Minnesota sucks.  They obviously don't suck.  It also doesn't meant that they shouldn't be in the CFP.  It does mean, however, that Minnesota's total resume isn't enough right now.  That said, they'll have the opportunity.  In their next three (or four) games they will play a ranked Iowa team on the road, a ranked Wisconsin team at home, and (possibly) a highly ranked opponent at a neutral site in the B1GCG. 

If Minnesota beats Iowa and Wisconsin and wins the B1GCG then their great start was legitimate.  If they lose to Iowa and Wisconsin then their great start was mostly just a backloaded schedule.  We'll find out. 

I'm pointing out that those close wins all occurred at the beginning of the year.  And compared to some of the other teams that were placed ahead....like Wisconsin or Iowa....it's just odd.  Iowa has played a tougher schedule, but they've lost all their games against good competition.  Wisconsin beat a pretty good Michigan team, but they also lost to Illinois.  I figured that the four straight thrashings leading up to the PSU game, despite being against bottom B10 teams, would have changed some perception.

But as you said....the Gophers weren't expected to be good.  So they were dinged for it.  It doesn't really matter much.  They have plenty of chances to prove themselves.

I posted this way back in the thread, but it deserves reposting.



https://twitter.com/CFBONFOX/status/1193669728360775680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1193669728360775680&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forums.gopherhole.com%2Fboards%2Fshowthread.php%3F91608-Brando-on-Playoff-Committee

the truly great thing about the Gopher's run and win last Saturday is that although the Gophers were a team recieving votes pre-season in the AP (7) & Coach's (1) polls, they have the oppotunity to prove their worth on the field of play and get a real shot at the trophy with a 4-team playoff.

Back when there was a 2-team playoff, the Gophers very well may have been left out if LSU and Clemson went undefeated.

with 4-teams if the Gooophers win out and beat the vaunted Buckeyes in the CCG, there's very little chance they are left out.

yes, an undefeated Gopher squad of boat rowers will get in over a one-loss Bama team.

and most of you know, I'm NOT a fan of a 4-team playoff.

and most of you know, I'm NOT a fan of a 4-team playoff.

Really?  See....I'd like to see it expand to eight and stop there.  Mostly to give Group of Five undefeated teams a shot.  UCF from a few years back could have competed.  I think they proved that with a win over Auburn in the Peach Bowl.

In 2016, there were no other one loss teams.  So Ohio State made it in.  In 2017, the only other one loss team was Wisconsin.....and they weren't a conference champion.  They lost to Ohio State in the Championship.  And their best two wins were over #19 Iowa & #25 Michigan....both at home.  Alabama had #18 LSU, @#19 Miss State, and a win over #3 FSU to open the season.

This year we are going to see at least one undefeated team....probably (Clemson).  LSU has a good shot as well.  Georgia could beat the in the championship game which would put them in.  The winner of the Big Ten championship will unlikely to have more than one loss.  Same goes for the PAC-12 and possibly the BIG-12.

I'd say that there's a decent shot that even a 13-1 conference champion will be left out.  That wouldn't even take into account what would occur if LSU had their one loss in the SEC championship.  Possibly two one loss conference champions left out?  All I'm saying is that.....with Alabama's resume at year end.....they are going to need to hope that things go downhill for quite a few teams.  Because it's not 2016 or 2017.

# of losses not being the ONLY criteria, as discussed here, I think Penn St. had an argument in 2016.  I'm not saying I fully supported them, but I'm saying they had a case.  And I'm also saying the CFPC basically "helmeted" them.  They talked a lot about how they valued conference championships, and I get PSU had more losses, but they spent a LOT of time talking about Ohio State's "best loss."  When they got done bloviating, it all just sounded like "Ohio State has a shinier helmet than PSU."  

Lest I piss off the 2,463 Buckeye fans here, let me be clear about this:  I'm not saying OSU definitely shouldn't have been in.  I'm saying that the case the CFPC made for them ignored their actual selling points while the committee and pundits harped on "best loss" and ignored their previous assertions about how important conference championships were to them.  

In this year, I'm looking mainly at Oregon, Utah, and Oklahoma, and that's because I freely admit I don't expect Minnesota or Baylor to go undefeated, and with a loss those two are out.  Palatable or not, that's how it is.  Oklahoma....I'm not even sure they're done losing.  And if they do win their remaining games, watch and see if losing to KSU and nearly whiffing against Iowa St. isn't used against them when comparing them to Alabama.  "Yeah but Alabama lost to #1/#2 LSU and OU lost to lowly KSU and nearly lost to ISU."  That crap has already started in the media.  I'm not projecting, this is a real thing, right now.  

Utah is in trouble simply by virtue of the fact they are Utah instead of some big helmet name.  If they win out I don't trust the committee at all to give them a fair shake after a loss to an okay SC team.  Oregon has a bigger name and stands a better shot if they win out, but that loss to Auburn is going to be an easy out for the CFPC committee to use transitively to say two things, 1) that Alabama will have beaten that same AU team Oregon lost to, and 2) losing to undefeated LSU is better than losing to what would then be a 3 or 4 loss Auburn team.  

I'm not arguing that any of this is right.  I am saying I don't think Alabama being out of it even if these other teams keep winning is as clear cut as you seem to think.  I wouldn't like it if they got in, but I don't get a vote.  

# of losses not being the ONLY criteria, as discussed here, I think Penn St. had an argument in 2016.  I'm not saying I fully supported them, but I'm saying they had a case.  And I'm also saying the CFPC basically "helmeted" them.  They talked a lot about how they valued conference championships, and I get PSU had more losses, but they spent a LOT of time talking about Ohio State's "best loss."  When they got done bloviating, it all just sounded like "Ohio State has a shinier helmet than PSU." 

Lest I piss off the 2,463 Buckeye fans here, let me be clear about this:  I'm not saying OSU definitely shouldn't have been in.  I'm saying that the case the CFPC made for them ignored their actual selling points while the committee and pundits harped on "best loss" and ignored their previous assertions about how important conference championships were to them. 

In this year, I'm looking mainly at Oregon, Utah, and Oklahoma, and that's because I freely admit I don't expect Minnesota or Baylor to go undefeated, and with a loss those two are out.  Palatable or not, that's how it is.  Oklahoma....I'm not even sure they're done losing.  And if they do win their remaining games, watch and see if losing to KSU and nearly whiffing against Iowa St. isn't used against them when comparing them to Alabama.  "Yeah but Alabama lost to #1/#2 LSU and OU lost to lowly KSU and nearly lost to ISU."  That crap has already started in the media.  I'm not projecting, this is a real thing, right now. 

Utah is in trouble simply by virtue of the fact they are Utah instead of some big helmet name.  If they win out I don't trust the committee at all to give them a fair shake after a loss to an okay SC team.  Oregon has a bigger name and stands a better shot if they win out, but that loss to Auburn is going to be an easy out for the CFPC committee to use transitively to say two things, 1) that Alabama will have beaten that same AU team Oregon lost to, and 2) losing to undefeated LSU is better than losing to what would then be a 3 or 4 loss Auburn team. 

I'm not arguing that any of this is right.  I am saying I don't think Alabama being out of it even if these other teams keep winning is as clear cut as you seem to think.  I wouldn't like it if they got in, but I don't get a vote. 

I certainly remember the scrum about PSU and OSU that year.  Just saying that most teams that end 13-1 with a conference title will have their one loss to a good team.  And they will all have better wins (and two more wins) than Alabama.  That would not include Clemson.  I don't think Clemson could drop a game....but they really shouldn't. 

Lots of interesting points here. Unfortunately those who say that this is all opinions and that’s how the committee makes her selection are correct.

It’s still early yet but the best comparison to this year in my opinion would be 2015 when Ohio State lost on the last second field goal in a driving rain storm to the Spartans then went on to win the conference and go to the playoff. I think you could’ve made a great case that Ohio State was the “best” team that year and pretty much everyone knew it but because they were a one loss non-conference championship they were not included.   By the way I have no problem with that except for that other teams are giving that benefit of the doubt