CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on December 02, 2024, 12:26:00 PM
-
I'll update once the CFP rankings come out Tuesday night but for now, using the AP Poll as a guide and assuming that the favorite wins the CG, the teams would be:
- #1 Oregon 13-0, B1G Champs
- #2 Texas 12-1, SEC Champs
- #8 SMU 12-1, ACC Champs
- #10 Boise State 12-1 MWC Champs
- #3 Penn State 11-2 at-large
- #4 Notre Dame 11-1 at-large
- #5 Georgia 10-3 at-large
- #6 Tennessee 10-2 at-large
- #7 Ohio State 10-2 at-large
- #9 Indiana 11-1 at-large
- #11 Bama 9-3 at-large
- #12 Arizona State 11-2 B12 Champs
So the match-ups would be:
- Arizona State at Penn State, winner vs Boise St
- Bama at Notre Dame, winner vs SMU
- Indiana at Georgia, winner vs Texas
- Ohio State at Tennessee, winner vs Oregon
Most of the CG's have very little impact on the playoffs overall, here they are sorted from least to most impactful:
B12CG, #12 ASU vs #16 ISU:
As I see it, this game is for the #12 seed so it only impacts these two teams directly.
MWCCG, #10 Boise vs #19 UNLV:
Boise is favored by 3.5 at home. An upset would move the B12 Champion up to the #4 seed and put UNLV in as the #12 seed.
B1GCG, #1 Oregon vs #3 Penn State:
Oregon is favored by 3.5 (give the points). An upset doesn't change much for the rest of the field. If PSU wins I would expect Texas to slide up to #1 with PSU at #2, and Oregon at #3.
SECCG, #2 Texas vs #5 Georgia:
Texas is favored by 2.5. With an upset, Georgia would take Texas' spot as the #2 seed and Texas would probably drop to the #5 seed which would push PSU and ND down one seed each.
ACCCG, #8 SMU vs #18 Clemson:
SMU is favored by 2.5 but this game is in Charlotte and I could easily see Clemson winning. If they do, I think that knocks Bama out because Clemson would get an auto-bid and SMU would likely still be in at 11-2.
-
If you compare the resumes of Penn St and Ohio St, there is an argument that Ohio St should still be ranked ahead of Penn St in the CFP.
Ohio St has good wins over Penn St and Indiana and close losses to Oregon and Mich. Also a close win over Nebraska, where OSU almost lost.
Penn St, it's best win is over Illinois and PSU has 2 close wins, over USC and Minnesota, where PSU almost lost.
-
If you compare the resumes of Penn St and Ohio St, there is an argument that Ohio St should still be ranked ahead of Penn St in the CFP.
Ohio St has good wins over Penn St and Indiana and close losses to Oregon and Mich. Also a close win over Nebraska, where OSU almost lost.
Penn St, it's best win is over Illinois and PSU has 2 close wins, over USC and Minnesota, where PSU almost lost.
It is a credible argument except that Ohio State's second loss was to a crappy team. You can't play like that and expect to get any favors.
Besides, I think Ohio State is better off with a road game in the playoffs. If they had to play at home after that disaster, it would be ugly.
-
A road game down south might be a blessing in disguise. OSU has a warm weather team.
-
Yes, if Penn State has the same record as Ohio Ohio State, and Ohio, Ohio State beat them in their own stadium. It’s hard to imagine Penn State being ranked higher.
on the other hand, when you ship the bed like Ohio State just did you really don’t have any basis to defend yourself lol
-
I will add, before this weekend, I felt like they had a good chance to make a serious run in the playoffs.
Now, I don’t think they’re going to play well at all because their egos and dreams have been shattered
-
Most of the CG's have very little impact on the playoffs overall.
Color me a bit confused by this.
Of five in play, two are play-ins, with 4-12 seed chicanery in play. One is maybe a play-in, with weird odds of 3-loss Clemson creating some weird seeding mess.
The other two are what? Flipping byes and maybe jostling the non-bye spots depending on how they fall?
What kinda CCG would have a big impact?
-
To get rid of all this uncertainty, they should just make a rule. If a CCG is between 2 teams already in the playoff bracket, they're both in and only seeding can change.
That would make this week's playoff bracket super important.
If the CCG is between a team out of the playoff bracket and a team seeded 10, 11, or 12 (unlikely 12), then it's winner is in, loser is out. Or make the seeds 9-12 or some agree-upon cutoff.
If you don't want to penalize a team for making its CCG, then don't, and don't BY RULE. It's not difficult.
-
Color me a bit confused by this.
Of five in play, two are play-ins, with 4-12 seed chicanery in play. One is maybe a play-in, with weird odds of 3-loss Clemson creating some weird seeding mess.
The other two are what? Flipping byes and maybe jostling the non-bye spots depending on how they fall?
What kinda CCG would have a big impact?
I didn't do a very good job of explaining what I meant. I meant a big impact on OTHER teams, not just the teams in the game.
Ie, look at the B12CG. As I see it, this game is a play-in, but it ONLY impacts the two teams playing in the game. It is effectively a playoff game for them but that is it.
That is why I see the ACCCG as the most impactful. In that one, I think that SMU is in regardless and Clemson is in ONLY if they win. Thus, that game impacts SMU, Clemson, and some other team not just the two involved.
-
Definitely coming into focus
Currently, Oregon, Texas, SMU, and Boise get byes.
- PSU hosts Arizona State
- OSU hosts Tennessee
- ND hosts Alabama
- Georgia hosts Indiana
Those are likely the teams in some order, with one big exception is if Clemson beats SMU. Then it comes down to SMU and Alabama for the last spot. Well, and Iowa State could sub in for ASU
-
Definitely coming into focus
Currently, Oregon, Texas, SMU, and Boise get byes.
- PSU hosts Arizona State
- OSU hosts Tennessee
- ND hosts Alabama
- Georgia hosts Indiana
Those are likely the teams in some order, with one big exception is if Clemson beats SMU. Then it comes down to SMU and Alabama for the last spot. Well, and Iowa State could sub in for ASU
Alabama is getting in come hell, or high water. Make no mistake about that.
SMU better win, or they’re out. Which is total BS. Bama should not get in.
-
To get rid of all this uncertainty, they should just make a rule. If a CCG is between 2 teams already in the playoff bracket, they're both in and only seeding can change.
That would make this week's playoff bracket super important.
If the CCG is between a team out of the playoff bracket and a team seeded 10, 11, or 12 (unlikely 12), then it's winner is in, loser is out. Or make the seeds 9-12 or some agree-upon cutoff.
If you don't want to penalize a team for making its CCG, then don't, and don't BY RULE. It's not difficult.
I’m personally ok with penalizing teams that play in a CCG. The reason being the conferences are so big now that teams within the same conference can play very different schedules. So, I don’t always put a lot of stock in one team playing in a CCG and another didn’t.
Penn St and Ohio State are in the same conference but besides playing each other only had one common opponent, Purdue. So if Penn St gets beat in the CCG I’m ok with dropping them behind teams from other conferences or even teams within its own conference.
-
I’m personally ok with penalizing teams that play in a CCG. The reason being the conferences are so big now that teams within the same conference can play very different schedules. So, I don’t always put a lot of stock in one team playing in a CCG and another didn’t.
Penn St and Ohio State are in the same conference but besides playing each other only had one common opponent, Purdue. So if Penn St gets beat in the CCG I’m ok with dropping them behind teams from other conferences or even teams within its own conference.
The fact that conference schedules are NOWHERE close to equivalent even within the same conference is going to take some getting used to.
Per your example, Ohio State's B1G opponents were 44-37 which is 11 games better than Penn State's B1G opponents who went 33-48. There were eight B1G teams that finished >.500 in the league: Ohio State played five of them, PSU and ORE played three each, IU played two.
In the past I think we just said "B1G Schedule" or "SEC Schedule" and viewed all of the B1G schedules and all of the SEC schedules as more-or-less interchangeable but in the era of gigantic mega-conferences where each team is only playing half of the league's teams, that simply isn't true anymore.
To put this in perspective, here are Oregon's, Penn State's, Indiana's, and Ohio State's league opponents arranged their final records:
(https://i.imgur.com/tpWUBxT.png)
This has made the phrase "B1G Schedule" altogether meaningless because which one, tOSU's or IU's?
There is a reasonable argument to have Ohio State ranked ahead of Penn State if the Nittany Lions lose to Oregon, particularly if it is a bad loss. That said, I can't see the committee dropping PSU because the team immediately behind them is ridiculously overrated. The Irish only played one game against a currently ranked team and that was against barely-ranked #24 Army. Despite their Charmin-soft schedule the Irish managed to lose a game. Granted, Ohio State also lost to an unranked team but you can't credibly argue that the NoIL team that finished .500 in the MAC is as good as a team that finished >.500 in the B1G. Thus, Ohio State's losses were both to teams better than the team that beat ND and the Irish's best wins were over Army and aTm which are barely ranked and barely unranked.
-
There has been chatter out there that SMU should forfeit their CCG.
That's where we are now.
-
There has been chatter out there that SMU should forfeit their CCG.
That's where we are now.
It would be beautiful if they did.
Also, I've heard PSU should play their back up's in the B1G Championship game, to move back to the coveted 5 seed.
They've really bungled this entire thing with formatting.
AQ's fine. Bu there should be no guaranteed bye's. Top 4 teams should get the bye's.
-
There has been chatter out there that SMU should forfeit their CCG.
That's where we are now.
They should fake a COVID outbreak.
-
or strep throat or the flu
-
Yes, I'm sure they'll pass up an opportunity for a conference title in order to have a different seed in a cfp that they have nearly 0% chance of winning.
That said, it might look like the backups are in, if the Ducks are firing on all cylinders.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/l97Csyv.jpeg)
-
It would be beautiful if they did.
Also, I've heard PSU should play their back up's in the B1G Championship game, to move back to the coveted 5 seed.
They've really bungled this entire thing with formatting.
AQ's fine. Bu there should be no guaranteed bye's. Top 4 teams should get the bye's.
I like rewarding Conference Champions with a bye. I'd prefer an eight team playoff that rewarded the top-4 Conference Champions with HFA in the quarter-finals but what they need to change is that they need to reseed after the first round using the rankings, not the CFP Seeds. So for this year, assuming all higher ranked teams win all games it would be this:
- #1 Oregon over #3 Penn State in B1GCG
- #2 Texas over #5 Georgia in SECCG
- #8 SMU over #17 Clemson in ACCCG
- #15 ASU over #16 ISU in B12CG
- #10 Boise over #20 UNLV in MWCCG
Then, assuming teams that lose their CG's don't get punished for it, the final seedings/rankings will be approximately:
- #1 Oregon
- #2 Texas
- #8 SMU
- #10 Boise
- #3 Penn State
- #4 Notre Dame
- #5 Georgia
- #6 Ohio State
- #7 Tennessee
- #9 Indiana
- #11 Bama
- #15 Arizona State
As it stands currently that leads to:
- #7 Tennessee at #6 Ohio State, winner vs #1 Oregon
- #9 Indiana at #5 Georgia, winner vs #2 Texas
- #11 Bama at #4 Notre Dame, winner vs #8 SMU
- #15 ASU at #3 Penn State, winner vs #10 Boise
With higher-ranked teams winning all games, the quarter-final match-ups are:
- #1 Oregon vs #6 Ohio State
- #2 Texas vs #5 Georgia
- #3 Penn State vs #10 Boise
- #4 Notre Dame vs #8 SMU
This is unfair to #1 Oregon and #2 Texas as their "reward" for going undefeated, winning their league, and finishing #1/2 is to get a tougher quarter-final opponent than Penn State and Notre Dame teams that were less accomplished and, in PSU's case, not only lost to a team that Oregon beat but also lost H2H to Oregon on a neutral field.
Reseeding fixes it. After the higher ranked teams win their first-round games, the new seeds are:
- #1 Oregon
- #2 Texas
- #3 Penn State
- #4 Notre Dame
- #5 Georgia
- #6 Ohio State
- #8 SMU
- #10 Boise
So the second round is:
- #1 Oregon vs #10 Boise
- #2 Texas vs #8 SMU
- #3 Penn State vs #6 Ohio State
- #4 Notre Dame vs #5 Georgia
Oregon and Texas accomplished enough to earn an easier path. They shouldn't get stuck playing #5/6 Georgia/Ohio State when #8/10 SMU/Boise are available.
For the record, I wasn't in favor of expansion and I wanted it limited to eight to keep more meaning in the regular season. I'd have set it up as eight teams with the four highest ranked Champions hosting the quarter-finals. You'd still have to include five league champions for legal/political reasons so the four teams thus eliminated would be Bama, Indiana, Tennessee and Ohio State and your seeds would be:
- #1 Oregon
- #2 Texas
- #8 SMU
- #10 Boise
- #3 Penn State
- #4 Notre Dame
- #5 Georgia
- #15 ASU
The first round games would be:
- #15 ASU at #1 Oregon
- #3 Penn State at #10 Boise
- #4 Notre Dame at #8 SMU
- #5 Georgia at #2 Texas
-
There has been chatter out there that SMU should forfeit their CCG.
That's where we are now.
No, and I'll tell you why. They have zero shot of doing anything in the playoff except going 0-1. They do have a shot at winning their conference championship. I would much rather have an ACC championship versus a meaningless CFP appearance, especially when you really didn't deserve to get there. But hey, maybe they will luck out and survive the first round, but even then, so what?
-
Ed Zachary
-
I like rewarding Conference Champions with a bye. I'd prefer an eight team playoff that rewarded the top-4 Conference Champions with HFA in the quarter-finals but what they need to change is that they need to reseed after the first round using the rankings, not the CFP Seeds. So for this year, assuming all higher ranked teams win all games it would be this:
- #1 Oregon over #3 Penn State in B1GCG
- #2 Texas over #5 Georgia in SECCG
- #8 SMU over #17 Clemson in ACCCG
- #15 ASU over #16 ISU in B12CG
- #10 Boise over #20 UNLV in MWCCG
Then, assuming teams that lose their CG's don't get punished for it, the final seedings/rankings will be approximately:
- #1 Oregon
- #2 Texas
- #8 SMU
- #10 Boise
- #3 Penn State
- #4 Notre Dame
- #5 Georgia
- #6 Ohio State
- #7 Tennessee
- #9 Indiana
- #11 Bama
- #15 Arizona State
As it stands currently that leads to:
- #7 Tennessee at #6 Ohio State, winner vs #1 Oregon
- #9 Indiana at #5 Georgia, winner vs #2 Texas
- #11 Bama at #4 Notre Dame, winner vs #8 SMU
- #15 ASU at #3 Penn State, winner vs #10 Boise
With higher-ranked teams winning all games, the quarter-final match-ups are:
- #1 Oregon vs #6 Ohio State
- #2 Texas vs #5 Georgia
- #3 Penn State vs #10 Boise
- #4 Notre Dame vs #8 SMU
This is unfair to #1 Oregon and #2 Texas as their "reward" for going undefeated, winning their league, and finishing #1/2 is to get a tougher quarter-final opponent than Penn State and Notre Dame teams that were less accomplished and, in PSU's case, not only lost to a team that Oregon beat but also lost H2H to Oregon on a neutral field.
Reseeding fixes it. After the higher ranked teams win their first-round games, the new seeds are:
- #1 Oregon
- #2 Texas
- #3 Penn State
- #4 Notre Dame
- #5 Georgia
- #6 Ohio State
- #8 SMU
- #10 Boise
So the second round is:
- #1 Oregon vs #10 Boise
- #2 Texas vs #8 SMU
- #3 Penn State vs #6 Ohio State
- #4 Notre Dame vs #5 Georgia
Oregon and Texas accomplished enough to earn an easier path. They shouldn't get stuck playing #5/6 Georgia/Ohio State when #8/10 SMU/Boise are available.
For the record, I wasn't in favor of expansion and I wanted it limited to eight to keep more meaning in the regular season. I'd have set it up as eight teams with the four highest ranked Champions hosting the quarter-finals. You'd still have to include five league champions for legal/political reasons so the four teams thus eliminated would be Bama, Indiana, Tennessee and Ohio State and your seeds would be:
- #1 Oregon
- #2 Texas
- #8 SMU
- #10 Boise
- #3 Penn State
- #4 Notre Dame
- #5 Georgia
- #15 ASU
The first round games would be:
- #15 ASU at #1 Oregon
- #3 Penn State at #10 Boise
- #4 Notre Dame at #8 SMU
- #5 Georgia at #2 Texas
Yuck:
With higher-ranked teams winning all games, the quarter-final match-ups are:
- #1 Oregon vs #6 Ohio State
- #2 Texas vs #5 Georgia
- #3 Penn State vs #10 Boise
- #4 Notre Dame vs #8 SMU
Still Yuck:
Reseeding fixes it. After the higher ranked teams win their first-round games, the new seeds are:
- #1 Oregon
- #2 Texas
- #3 Penn State
- #4 Notre Dame
- #5 Georgia
- #6 Ohio State
- #8 SMU
- #10 Boise
So the second round is:
- #1 Oregon vs #10 Boise
- #2 Texas vs #8 SMU
- #3 Penn State vs #6 Ohio State
- #4 Notre Dame vs #5 Georgia
Worst of all:
You'd still have to include five league champions for legal/political reasons so the four teams thus eliminated would be Bama, Indiana, Tennessee and Ohio State and your seeds would be:
- #1 Oregon
- #2 Texas
- #8 SMU
- #10 Boise
- #3 Penn State
- #4 Notre Dame
- #5 Georgia
- #15 ASU
The first round games would be:
- #15 ASU at #1 Oregon
- #3 Penn State at #10 Boise
- #4 Notre Dame at #8 SMU
- #5 Georgia at #2 Texas
This is better:
*. #1 Oregon - Bye
- #2 Texas - Bye
- #3 Penn State - Bye
- #4 Notre Dame - Bye
- #5 Georgia
- #6 Ohio State
- #7 Tennessee
- #9 Indiana
- #11 Bama
- #8 SMU
- #10 Boise
- #15 Arizona State
The 3 turds at the end shouldn't be taking up valuable space after the 1st round, and certainly shouldn't be taking up 3 spots in an 8 team field.
-
Is the Mac the least impactful ccg? Or is the Sunbelt worse?
-
There are no stupid questions
-
This is merely a 2-year dumpster fire of a postseason. Whoever came up with this playoff format is a dipshit. Why have 4 byes for 4 conf champs when the conferences are demonstrably unequal?
Boise gets a first-class seat BECAUSE they had an easier path?!/ What the what?!? ASU gets a ticket onto the plane because its new conference is mediocrity's best friend?!?! How ?!?
It's fucking stupid. But it's temporary.
-
Everything is temporary
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4909/43990070460_66fea6c282_b.jpg)
-
Fuck it. Let it play out the next 3-4 seasons. I mean, nobody expected TCU to beat Michigan.
We’re so engrained with the old ways we refuse to try anything new.
-
That's the right attitude to have, but we somehow went from "give them a seat at the table" to "here's your first-class seat for 50% of the cost" somewhere along the way.
That is broken.
-
What's the worst idea for a postseason format that you've ever seen proposed?
-
What's the worst idea for a postseason format that you've ever seen proposed?
I don't know about the worst, but I know about the best.
Rose: Big Ten, Pac 10
Sugar: SEC, at large
Orange: Big 8, at large
Cotton: SWC, at large
-
amen
-
That's the right attitude to have, but we somehow went from "give them a seat at the table" to "here's your first-class seat for 50% of the cost" somewhere along the way.
That is broken.
the SEC is gonna break it when SEC teams don't have home field and get beat
and when SEC teams get rematches with SEC teams and knock themselves out of the final 4
-
the SEC is gonna break it when SEC teams don't have home field and get beat
and when SEC teams get rematches with SEC teams and knock themselves out of the final 4
At least we are in agreement about who runs things.
-
it's no secret to me
Big Ten is 2nd fiddle
-
I used to think any CG loser should be out of the playoff, that obviously can't work at all today.
Weird stuff is often OK with me, but it's clear this "system" is both weird and often nonsensical.
-
I used to think any CG loser should be out of the playoff, that obviously can't work at all today.
Ah yeah, already expecting a loss in the CCG, are we? ;)
-
Bama has it's fingers crossed
-
https://twitter.com/KFordRatings/status/1864686513214173264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1864686513214173264%7Ctwgr%5Ed767dd774c515a150987d6ae5475be078b50559d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FKFordRatings%2Fstatus%2F1864686513214173264
-
All American playoffs are way overinclusive. The NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB all encourage including mediocrity in their playoffs. Nearly their whole seasons are really just preseasons. So do the NCAA basketball tournaments. Sure, the upsets are fun, but easily half the teams have no business being there.
I love playoff hockey. It just hits different. But there's no reason a team that came in third or fourth place in its division should be playing for the championship. It's an 82-game season, for crying out loud. What is all that for if half the teams get into the playoffs?
-
$$$$$$$
The mystery is why CFB took so long to expand, some of that might be bowls.
-
Of course it's the money. And yeah, CFB did take a long time, but those bowl games used to be pretty great.
It's almost as if the NCAA was right back in the 1980s when it argued that the schools/conferences having control over their own TV deals would threaten the amateurism model...
-
I love playoff hockey. It just hits different. But there's no reason a team that came in third or fourth place in its division should be playing for the championship.
like Bama???
-
We all chatted about how teams below around 6th don't really "deserve" it. One will eventually catch fire and win it, but they still shouldn't have been in the mix IMHO.
And yes, some team might lose early and gel, OK fine, but they still should be excluded in my view. But we have this System and I'm going to make some modest effort to go along and enjoy it. I don't think the Dawgs should be in it.
-
Yes, like Bama. And...Ohio State.
-
4-team playoff
(https://i.imgur.com/Hq6oZ2a.png)
-
8-team playoff?
Add
Indiana, SMU, Boise, & Army
-
12-team?
Some 2-loss suckbutts are gonna be invited
I'll wait until the dust settles this weekend
and then try to enjoy it while rooting for underdogs
-
12-team?
Some 2-loss suckbutts are gonna be invited
I'll wait until the dust settles this weekend
and then try to enjoy it while rooting for underdogs
Texas is an underdog! Maybe not according to the betting line, but in spirit!
-
I'm disappointed in the ideology here of 0 or 1 loss is okay, but 2 is some sort of tragedy for a playoff team. 1 is 1 more than 0. 2 is 1 more than 1.
A difficult schedule with 2 losses > an easy schedule with 1 or 0 losses
Please stop acting like once you lost a 2nd time, you cross some threshold of failure. It's the same difference as the separation between 0 and 1 loss.
No, there is no universe in which Army should be in a playoff.
-
sorry, you lose 2 games
why should you be cornsidered???
-
sorry, you lose 2 games
why should you be cornsidered???
sorry, you lose 1 game
why should you be considered???
-
2007 LSU has entered the chat.
-
I'm good with that
If Oregon beats PSU, it's over
-
PSU was NOT rooting for Michigan last week.
-
Why has winning the Big Ten become so meaningless to everyone? It still means something.
-
Why has winning the Big Ten become so meaningless to everyone? It still means something.
Because people love a self pity party.
-
Conference championships definitely mean something to me. It's not like Texas has been taking them home regularly. Even during our best years under Mack Brown, the Horns only won 2 of them.
But the sports mediot focus on the national championship has become so great, that some folks view it as the ONLY prize worth winning, and any season without one is a bust. That seems like setting yourself up for some major misery, not many seasons are going to end in a NC. Unless you're an Alabama fan and Saban is your coach, I suppose.
-
Why has winning the Big Ten become so meaningless to everyone? It still means something.
James Franklin might be more than interested
might be a performance bonus clause in his contract
-
Why has winning the Big Ten become so meaningless to everyone? It still means something.
To me?
Winning the Big 18 means nothing anymore. 4 Big 18 teams are going to make the playoffs and they didn't all play each other.
I'm not even gonna bother watching today. Oregon and PSU are in no matter the outcome. So are OSU and IU. The regular season means nothing now.
-
I'm not gonna watch... someone scheduled a wedding for today w/o consulting me.
back when I was invited to the weddin I knew the Huskers wouldn't be playin today
-
As long as this is how the "evolved" ape voters do it, there is absolutely zero reason to schedule any difficult/fun to watch opponents. For the thousandth time, a 7 year old could rank them this way.
An no, there's no magical delineation between 1-2 and 4-5. As much as people like to pretend there is. More inherent childish thinking.
(https://i.imgur.com/jVtWTrt.jpeg)
-
The Heisman always seems like a good psychological experiment. How do voters, who have no restrictions, always seem to land around a few guys who almost never play defense or offensive line.
-
The Heisman always seems like a good psychological experiment. How do voters, who have no restrictions, always seem to land around a few guys who almost never play defense or offensive line.
They're a subset of the masses, ie - cavemen.
-
As long as this is how the "evolved" ape voters do it, there is absolutely zero reason to schedule any difficult/fun to watch opponents. For the thousandth time, a 7 year old could rank them this way.
An no, there's no magical delineation between 1-2 and 4-5. As much as people like to pretend there is. More inherent childish thinking.
[img width=500 height=265.995]https://i.imgur.com/jVtWTrt.jpeg[/img]
but, but, what about 2-4 and 5-7?
that requires some deep thinkin
-
Then we're screwed.
-
But the sports mediot focus on the national championship has become so great, that some folks view it as the ONLY prize worth winning, and any season without one is a bust. That seems like setting yourself up for some major misery, not many seasons are going to end in a NC. Unless you're an Alabama fan and Saban is your coach, I suppose.
I always find this explanation a bit silly.
-We say these people are idiots
-We mock the things they do
-We let the things they do dictate what we care about?
Like, we control what we care about. Wisconsin was quickly out of the playoffs, missing a chance at a bowl was none the less very meaningful to me. It's weird. I decide what I care about.
And if UW was playing for a conference title in this system, I'd care about that too. Shit, I cared about it when there was no title chance and they were gonna get whipped by OSU in 2019.
-
As long as this is how the "evolved" ape voters do it, there is absolutely zero reason to schedule any difficult/fun to watch opponents. For the thousandth time, a 7 year old could rank them this way.
An no, there's no magical delineation between 1-2 and 4-5. As much as people like to pretend there is. More inherent childish thinking.
(https://i.imgur.com/jVtWTrt.jpeg)
I have a lot fo fans who root for a 9-3 SEC team and spent the past week caterwauling. Alas, few good options when stacking teams.
-
People are so blinded by the logos that they miss the larger point.
The ACC is not good. Pick your evidence, it's all there.
Yet a 2-loss ACC team should automatically be in over a 3-loss SEC team?
Again, childish thinking. Context matters, BEYOND best win and worst loss.
Like fuck guys, why bother playing 12 games when 10 of the outcomes aren't taken into account?!?!?!?
-
Failing 2 easy tests or Failing 3 hard tests???
Pick your poison
-
Failing 2 easy tests or Failing 3 hard tests???
Pick your poison
Notre Dame failed an easy open-book test, yet they're comfortable.
-
Only because too many SEC teams failed 3 tests
-
Thanks to an expanded, 12-team playoff, this is the type of idiotic debate we're having now.
Fun.
-
Thanks to an expanded, 12-team playoff, this is the type of idiotic debate we're having now.
Fun.
Thanks to the College Football Playoff Committee, your debate doesn't matter.
The smartest people in the sport handle who goes or doesn't go.
And they're the folks who gave us this, as you point out:
(https://i.imgur.com/YSvV4Ma.png)
Of course, for someone who says "context matters", interesting that you left out some context:
(https://i.imgur.com/cecu53X.png)
Hmm, what's that? A bunch of 10-2 teams from the SEC/B1G ranked above 11-1 teams from the ACC/MWC and an obvious fraud from the B1G? 9-3 teams from the SEC ranked above 10-2 teams from the B12?
Seems that they don't "just rank by # of losses". Maybe they're not as lazy and stupid as you think?
-
maybe
-
Thanks to the College Football Playoff Committee, your debate doesn't matter.
The smartest people in the sport handle who goes or doesn't go.
And they're the folks who gave us this, as you point out:
(https://i.imgur.com/YSvV4Ma.png)
Of course, for someone who says "context matters", interesting that you left out some context:
(https://i.imgur.com/cecu53X.png)
Hmm, what's that? A bunch of 10-2 teams from the SEC/B1G ranked above 11-1 teams from the ACC/MWC and an obvious fraud from the B1G? 9-3 teams from the SEC ranked above 10-2 teams from the B12?
Seems that they don't "just rank by # of losses". Maybe they're not as lazy and stupid as you think?
I guess we could have this conversation. I don't see why we have to, but sure, why not?
All of the times they rank a team with fewer losses behind one with more losses, there's a reason (excuse) that we all know of already.
SMU and Boise are shifted down due to being from a lesser conference. Whether it's considering the ACC as lesser now or recognizing that SMU was in a G5 conference up to yesterday, it matters not.
IU, as you said, is a cellar-dweller program that has literally zero track record of success. It's consistent to rank them behind 2-loss teams you've heard of before.
The only possible exception comes next, in Bama/Miami. I suppose this is a combination of the helmetocity of Bama + the ACC as being seen as less-than, as well as Miami's defense being hot garbage all season. If you'd like to chalk this up to the voters being smart, feel free. THAT'S ONE.
The next group is SEC ranked over newcomers/weaker conference teams. And/or something as simple as "well these teams weren't supposed to be good this year." Pick your reason.
.
The reason I cut it off where I did wasn't to avoid this discussion, but that none of these teams is going to win the NC. They're afterthoughts and voters treat them as such. No one is going to get blasted on social media for who they rank 15th vs who they rank 19th. The top matters.
The other reason I didn't bother with it is that the voters have been quite consistent with setting back teams from lesser conferences a level of ranking (ie - a fewer loss, but behind P5/4 programs)....which is why Mizzou being behind BYU is fairly stunning to me. Hell, that's an example of voters being inconsistent, lol.
.
And I do apologize if this hasn't been evident to everyone else over the years. I tend to assume certain things are common knowledge when they are not.
Let me pick a random year's end-of-regular-season rankings:
2018
(https://i.imgur.com/BYnTzwn.jpeg)
This is basically how it works and it's pretty consistent. I think you could argue there are now "name" G5-level programs that maybe get a 1-game penalty rather than the 2-games you see here with UCF and Boise.
But if you look at the top, it's child's play (thinking). All the way down to 12, with a mid-major thrown in there because of the fancy 0 in the L column, despite a high school schedule (85th, only ranked opp was fellow AAC team).
I can't be the only one who's noticed this pattern.....can I?
-
All of the times they rank a team with fewer losses behind one with more losses, there's a reason (excuse) that we all know of already.
Generally, yes. There's a reason. They don't think they're as good.
Just like last year they ranked FSU behind everyone despite being undefeated, since (as you approved of) they didn't think they were as good after their starting AND backup QBs went down. And in 2014, they ranked an undefeated FSU team, the reigning national champ, #3 in the CFP behind two 1-loss teams, because they didn't they they were as good.
Sometimes there's a pattern of ranking teams with more losses below teams with fewer losses, because the losses might indicate a team isn't as good. In other cases, they rank teams with more losses ahead of teams with fewer losses, because they think despite the number of losses that the team is better.
(Frankly, I'd rank Alabama over SMU/IU/BSU in a true power ranking, but I guess the committee won't go quite that far. Because perhaps... At some points results on the field actually matter. I don't think Alabama is more deserving of a CFP spot than those teams.)
-
Generally, yes. There's a reason. They don't think they're as good.
Sometimes there's a pattern of ranking teams with more losses below teams with fewer losses, because the losses might indicate a team isn't as good. In other cases, they rank teams with more losses ahead of teams with fewer losses, because they think despite the number of losses that the team is better.
If an exhaustive study were conducted, I believe you'd simply find teams with fewer losses ranked behind teams with more losses at being in 2 camps:
weaker conference (P5 vs G5)
and
weak or no history of success (IU this year)
*It's possible what I've said here aligns with what you posted, but when not aligned, I feel the teams themselves almost don't matter (as per the above in my post)
.
2014 FSU was so noteworthy because they were the exception, not the rule.
-
If an exhaustive study were conducted, I believe you'd simply find teams with fewer losses ranked behind teams with more losses at being in 2 camps:
weaker conference (P5 vs G5)
and
weak or no history of success (IU this year)
*It's possible what I've said here aligns with what you posted, but when not aligned, I feel the teams themselves almost don't matter (as per the above in my post)
.
2014 FSU was so noteworthy because they were the exception, not the rule.
I'd say that when we're talking about traditional polls, I completely buy the "lazy and/or stupid" rationale. Especially the Coaches Poll. We all know that FBS coaches don't have the time or interest level to care, so they probably push their poll down to some staffer... I share your disdain for "the masses"... Even if in this case "the masses" are disinterested CFB coaches or AP voters.
But for the CFP ranking, we're dealing with people (the committee) who have seriously invested their time into this one specific task. People who have been in/around this sport for decades. People who should be legitimately considered relevant authorities in this task.
To me it sounds like you're saying that we simply can't trust "the experts" to do this right. Because if the CFP committee can't get it right, who would you possible put in charge of this?
-
I'd say that when we're talking about traditional polls, I completely buy the "lazy and/or stupid" rationale. Especially the Coaches Poll. We all know that FBS coaches don't have the time or interest level to care, so they probably push their poll down to some staffer... I share your disdain for "the masses"... Even if in this case "the masses" are disinterested CFB coaches or AP voters.
But for the CFP ranking, we're dealing with people (the committee) who have seriously invested their time into this one specific task. People who have been in/around this sport for decades. People who should be legitimately considered relevant authorities in this task.
To me it sounds like you're saying that we simply can't trust "the experts" to do this right. Because if the CFP committee can't get it right, who would you possible put in charge of this?
Something objective, lol.
Idk, the average age of the committee is 61, and with that comes certain probable traditional thinking. I doubt, as a collective, they're that statistically inclined. The former coaches and players are likely to be especially subjective and traditional, touting toughness and such, as pros for a team in question.
They may be experts, but I worry they're experts of outdated thinking. Are people who grew up on Woody vs Bo 3 yards and a cloud of dust, student body right, etc the best group to be ranking teams in 2024?
-
Outdated thinking? In football?
Winning is winning
-
Something objective, lol.
Idk, the average age of the committee is 61, and with that comes certain probable traditional thinking. I doubt, as a collective, they're that statistically inclined. The former coaches and players are likely to be especially subjective and traditional, touting toughness and such, as pros for a team in question.
They may be experts, but I worry they're experts of outdated thinking. Are people who grew up on Woody vs Bo 3 yards and a cloud of dust, student body right, etc the best group to be ranking teams in 2024?
Computer models are objective. I know you don't like those.
-
Woof.
-
Computer models are objective. I know you don't like those.
Huh?
-
I'm eager for someone to explain how ASU jumps Boise, when they're 5 spots apart and both won their CCGs.
-
Devils win over the clones was MUCH more impressive
-
5 spots more impressive? With an extra loss more impressive? I think it would be sort of unprecedented.
-
Huh?
You want an objective system, or at least that's what you just said. But you used to rail against the BCS computer rankings because they were "wrong". My conjecture is that they were objective, but you considered them "wrong" because they disagreed with your subjective rankings.
I don't think you want an objective system. I think you want a system that comes up with results with which you agree.
I'm eager for someone to explain how ASU jumps Boise, when they're 5 spots apart and both won their CCGs.
Has this happened? AFAIK the committee with release their new rankings until tomorrow(?)...
-
You want an objective system, or at least that's what you just said. But you used to rail against the BCS computer rankings because they were "wrong". My conjecture is that they were objective, but you considered them "wrong" because they disagreed with your subjective rankings.
I don't think you want an objective system. I think you want a system that comes up with results with which you agree.
Uhhh, this is completely false.
I prefer computer rankings. My criticism with them when it came to their use in the BCS was that they were compromised and altered, NOT the actual genuine rankings.
I'm fairly sure I'm correct about this one :)
-
5 spots more impressive? With an extra loss more impressive? I think it would be sort of unprecedented.
Just giving you the answer
-
Just giving you the answer
Oh, well that was easy.
-
So the groups of teams we have are:
champs:
B10 champ Oregon is legit, having beaten OSU, PSU, and Boise. Strong outcomes, strong tests.
SEC champ Georgia has 2 losses to good teams, and beat playoff team Texas twice. 2 losses, but difficult schedule
XII champ ASU has 2 losses to unranked teams, but is on a 6-game win streak (which is important, I'm told, but idk why).
ACC champ Clemson has 3 losses, including being whipped by UGA. Just had their first win over a ranked opp.
MWC champ Boise has 1 loss to #1 Oregon. Crap schedule - best wins are @ UNLV and vs UNLV. Yawn.
.
non-champs
Team with good record, but haven't beaten anyone of note: Indiana (lost only strong challenge)
Teams with good record, but had a bad loss: Notre Dame, OSU
2-loss teams with weak schedule and lost to only good teams they played: Texas, Penn St
2-loss team with at least a decent schedule and good loss: Tennessee
--------------consensus line of demarcation (11 teams above are "in")-------------
2-loss teams from weak ACC: SMU, Miami
2-loss team from weak XII: BYU (beat SMU, but lost 2 of last 3 (like Miami) - if win streaks matter, doesn't this?)
3-loss teams with a high ceiling (beat a playoff team): Bama, Miss, USCe
Syracuse is somewhere between these last 2 groups (win vs Miami)
3-loss teams with nothing to boast about: Mizzou, Illinois, ISU, CU
-
Frank Solich finally wins a conference title
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4w6C1XOdUAZHZ6nHpI6r3qGMz69hVjY1rXA&s)
oh, wait...
-
There will always be controversy in who is left out. They make a decision and that's that.
-
Teams with good record, but had a bad loss: Notre Dame, OSU
I don't count Michigan as a bad loss for OSU. Michigan has a 7-5 record and it's the biggest rivalry game in the land.
NIU has a 7-5 record in the MAC. That's a bad loss.
-
XII: One team
ACC: One team, + fND
G5: One team
SEC and B1G make up the rest.
fUO, OSU, PSU, IU, UGA, UTx2, UAT.
-
I don't count Michigan as a bad loss for OSU. Michigan has a 7-5 record and it's the biggest rivalry game in the land.
NIU has a 7-5 record in the MAC. That's a bad loss.
Michigan at 7-5 is not good
bad loss
NIU is just worse
-
This
(https://i.imgur.com/yCotyj5.png)
is not this.
(https://i.imgur.com/99YUR96.png)
-
Agreed
Doesn't change the fact that a loss to Michigan is bad
-
I'm eager for someone to explain how ASU jumps Boise, when they're 5 spots apart and both won their CCGs.
If it happens, becuase “spots” and “winning CCGs” are both somewhat soft inputs, and because the whole committee process is pretty vibes based and lacks continuity.
-
IF we end up with:
Clemson at Texas - Probably a 10+ point spread.
Tenn at Ohio State - Maybe a 5 point spread.
Indiana at ND - Maybe 8 point spread.
Alabama at PSU - Maybe 6 point spread.
-
Oh man I'd love to see Indiana play, and beat, the domers. How much fun would that be???
-
There will always be controversy in who is left out. They make a decision and that's that.
Mystery solved!
-
Any ordering will generate controversy, we all knew that, and perhaps it will be enough to redo things after next season.
-
I don't count Michigan as a bad loss for OSU. Michigan has a 7-5 record and it's the biggest rivalry game in the land.
NIU has a 7-5 record in the MAC. That's a bad loss.
When a 10-1 team loses to a conference foe at 6-5.....that's always a bad loss.
-
O'Gara: Projecting the final Playoff field for Selection Sunday (https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/projecting-final-playoff-field-2024/)
Pretty close to my "ranking". No Bama.
-
SMU is 11-2 vs the 60th-hardest schedule.
Alabama is 9-3 vs the 16th-hardest schedule.
The outcomes matter AND the who the outcomes are against matters.
-
IF we end up with:
Clemson at Texas - Probably a 10+ point spread.
Tenn at Ohio State - Maybe a 5 point spread.
Indiana at ND - Maybe 8 point spread.
Alabama at PSU - Maybe 6 point spread.
First round games?
Indiana at Penn State (winner plays Georgia)
Alabama(90%)/SMU(10%) at Texas (winner plays Boise St)
Tennessee at Ohio St (winner plays Oregon)
Clemson at ND (winner plays Arizona St)
-
Bama also lost to Vandy and should have lost to USCe at home and got blown out by OU. I would leave them out. Playing a tough slate is one thing, losing to two near pastries is not good in my view.
Had ND beaten NIU, they'd probably be ranked #1 and only at 5 in the playoff. Maybe Oregon would top them.
-
Bama also lost to Vandy and should have lost to USCe at home and got blown out by OU. I would leave them out. Playing a tough slate is one thing, losing to two near pastries is not good in my view.
Had ND beaten NIU, they'd probably be ranked #1 and only at 5 in the playoff. Maybe Oregon would top them.
Listing the bad and ignoring the good is 1-sided. Be 2-sided.
-
SMU did not beat a ranked team.
Of course, IU didn't either, but they only one loss - on the road.
-
Alabama is 9-3 vs the 16th-hardest schedule.
The outcomes matter AND the who the outcomes are against matters.
Listing the good and ignoring the bad is 1-sided. Be 2-sided.
-
This
(https://i.imgur.com/sm4B4Sb.png)
is not this.
(https://i.imgur.com/7sTu2dp.png)
-
Texas has a decent path.
-
Just schedule light. That's the moral of the story.
.
Penn state has a red carpet laid out for them, and OSU had an impossible gauntlet.
PSU gets SMU, Boise, and UGA with their backup QB.
OSU gets Tennessee, Oregon, and Texas.
LOL.
-
Bama got screwed.
-
Texas has a decent path.
To win the NC, if everything goes chalk, Texas will have to beat the ACC champion, the B12 champion, the B1G champion, and the SEC champion.
-
If Texas and UGA make the final, they shouldn't play again. UGA is the NC.
-
I have no interest in handwringing over bubble teams in a bloated playoff.
-
If Texas and UGA make the final, they shouldn't play again. UGA is the NC.
Bwahahaha,
(https://i.imgur.com/yVUH0Yb.png)
-
I have no interest in handwringing over bubble teams in a bloated playoff.
Agree. If Alabama wanted in they shouldn't have been completely dominated by a shitty OU team.
-
Just schedule light. That's the moral of the story.
https://twitter.com/BCrawford247/status/1865813592915706133?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1865813592915706133%7Ctwgr%5E4eaec2233b884d51b18fa5125cae1cfc5c39f741%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbssports.com%2Fcollege-football%2Fnews%2F2024-bowl-games-live-announcements-schedule-college-football-playoff-bracket-bowl-news%2Flive%2F (https://twitter.com/BCrawford247/status/1865813592915706133?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1865813592915706133|twgr^4eaec2233b884d51b18fa5125cae1cfc5c39f741|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbssports.com%2Fcollege-football%2Fnews%2F2024-bowl-games-live-announcements-schedule-college-football-playoff-bracket-bowl-news%2Flive%2F)
-
Cancel all future tough OOC games, don't need 'em. They can only hurt you.
-
Wisconsin turning out to be butt didn't help the Tide. But really, seems like the committee was saying they weren't going to punish teams that lost in their championship games. Texas and PSU given good treatment, too.
-
I think OSU should be in PSU's spot.
-
Texas favored by 11.5 over Clemson
OSU -6.5 over Tennessee
ND -7.5 over IU.
Penn St -7.5 over SMU.
-
How is SMU ahead of Clemson?
-
How is SMU ahead of Clemson?
Because the season is more than 1 data point. SMU is actually well ahead of Clemson (10th vs 16th).
The same reason ND is ranked ahead of Northern Illinois.
-
If Texas and UGA make the final, they shouldn't play again. UGA is the NC.
Bwahahaha
Ya know like Bluto in Animal House - for once he's right,absolutely psychotic but right
-
Ya know like Bluto in Animal House - for once he's right,absolutely psychotic but right
Bwahahahaha
-
Going for the Triple Crown?
-
I don't count Michigan as a bad loss for OSU. Michigan has a 7-5 record and it's the biggest rivalry game in the land.
NIU has a 7-5 record in the MAC. That's a bad loss.
NIU is definitely way worse and thank you for trying to make excuses for my team but that absolutely was and is a bad loss. Ohio State was a ~3TD favorite for good reason. Also, it isn't like Michigan just played a ridiculously great game. Their offense was atrocious and Ryan Day found a way for our offense to be worse.
-
In the good ole days, ND would be ranked 2nd going into the bowls. #1 Oregon would be facing Ohio State in a RB rematch.
Probably would have the Irish facing Georgia in the Sugar. Penn State playing Texas in the Cotton. Maybe Miami and Tennessee in the Orange Bowl.
Indiana facing someone like SMU in the Fiesta.
-
I suspect a major bowl would invite Alabama just because of eye balls.
-
I think OSU should be in PSU's spot.
I strongly agree with this.
-
I suspect a major bowl would invite Alabama just because of eye balls.
Alabama/Miami? And Miami gets crushed?
-
https://twitter.com/ramzy/status/1865806965525393685?t=KK4xURqV5i4nK8-yDj4gNg&s=19
-
O'Gara: Takeaways from the final Playoff Poll of 2024 ... did the selection committee get it right? (https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/ogara-takeaways-from-the-final-playoff-poll-of-2024-did-the-selection-committee-get-it-right/)
Sorry, Alabama fans.
But if you believe that SMU losing in the ACC Championship on a last-second field goal should’ve knocked out the Mustangs in favor of the idle Tide, ask yourself this: How much arguing for Alabama in the Playoff did you do after the 21-point loss to 6-win Oklahoma? Not much. Better yet, how much arguing did you do that Alabama should be ranked ahead of a 1-loss SMU team when that happened? Not much, either.
That’s the issue. SMU running the table in ACC play isn’t the same as running the table in SEC play. We can agree on that. But going 11-2 with field-goal losses to ranked teams wasn’t some Group of 5 résumé.
And here’s the other thing: So in this world in which Alabama should’ve made the field — according to Nick Saban’s unbiased opinion — how many losses would’ve been too many? Four? And should another one of those losses have come against a 6-6 team? At some point, Alabama couldn’t just ignore the losses.
“Did 5-seed Texas get a better draw than 1-seed Oregon?
Think about it. Texas will face 12-seed Clemson, which finally just beat an FBS team with 8 wins. Also of note, Clemson went 0-2 vs. the SEC, and Texas’ only losses came against No. 2 seed Georgia. The Longhorns, if they can make that an 0-3 mark for Clemson vs. the SEC, would get to face Arizona State in a quarterfinal matchup.
Oregon, meanwhile, will face the winner of that aforementioned Tennessee-Ohio State game. Are both of those teams tougher than Clemson and Arizona State? That’s debatable. Lord knows nobody should overlook Arizona State after it went 11-1 with Sam Leavitt as the starter.
It’s at least a conversation. Oregon could possibly have a path to the title game that consists of Ohio State in a rematch and a Texas team that just earned the top Playoff berth. Who knows? Maybe Oregon could have to beat Penn State again. Two rematches and a date with Sarkisian would be quite the challenge.
-
https://twitter.com/rmginn/status/1865808393350394088?t=abCbVFAVQS-QIttbJmxlcg&s=19
-
Who are the big surprises in the 12 teamer? Boise State a bit, certainly getting the bye, SMU for sure, Indiana for sure.... the rest I think are not shockers. Missing out as a surprise is Bama of course and Ole Miss earlier in the season. South Carolina was a surprise to me as a team that exceeded expectations.
-
Who are the big surprises in the 12 teamer? Boise State a bit, certainly getting the bye, SMU for sure, Indiana for sure.... the rest I think are not shockers. Missing out as a surprise is Bama of course and Ole Miss earlier in the season. South Carolina was a surprise to me as a team that exceeded expectations.
Would never had guessed ASU at the beginning of the season.
-
Ryan Ginn
@rmginn
Alabama and their media lackeys explaining why it’s actually good to lose 40-35 to Vanderbilt and 24-3 to Oklahoma
or
But if you believe that SMU losing in the ACC Championship on a last-second field goal should’ve knocked out the Mustangs in favor of the idle Tide, ask yourself this: How much arguing for Alabama in the Playoff did you do after the 21-point loss to 6-win Oklahoma? Not much.
Dayum guess that's a resounding no from the Proletariat regarding Bama backing in
-
Would never had guessed ASU at the beginning of the season.
They were ranked last in the preseason conference poll.
-
I’m actually pretty good with the 12 teams that made the cut. You can quibble about a couple teams that got left out, but the SEC is well represented, as is the Big 10.
-
Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne said Sunday that he would need to assess his nonconference scheduling philosophy moving forward after the Crimson Tide were the first team left out of the 12-team College Football Playoff field.
In a post on X, Byrne said he was "disappointed" with the outcome and acknowledged the losses to .500 teams Vanderbilt and Oklahoma as "two games in particular that we did not perform as well as we should have."
But he also added that nonconference scheduling is an area that would have to be evaluated.
"We have said that we would need to see how strength of schedule would be evaluated by the CFP," Byrne wrote. "With this outcome, we will need to asses how many P4 nonconference games make sense in the future to put us in the best position to participate in the CFP. That is not good for college football."
Alabama played only one Power 4 nonconference game this year -- a 42-10 win at Wisconsin. But next year, the Crimson Tide have two Power 4 nonconference games -- at Florida State to open the season Aug. 30, and a return home game against Wisconsin on Sept. 13.
-
I don't think it's an Alabama thing, it's an overall thing. If doing well vs the 60th-ranked schedule gets you in, don't bother with scheduling a 'name' OOC opponent when your conference schedule will be plenty strong enough.
-
agreed
It's just that the Bammer AD is really gonna hafta work to make the OOC schedule crappier - Mercer, USF, Badgers, Western Kentucky!
adding a 2-10 FSU next year is like playin Mercer twice
sure as hell aren't gonna add that 9th conference game
-
Noise. And whining.
-
How did Bama's noncon schedule harm their pedigree? It didn't, at all, nor could they logically make it much weaker except by dropping a Wisconsin. Go ahead with that, Bama, play four pastries instead of three, then lose 3 conference games and whine about being left out.
This is silly.
UGA played two pretty tough opponents OOC and very nearly lost to one of them which would have left them ... in the playoff, with a bye.
-
(12) Clemson (+11.5) at (5) Texas -- Saturday, Dec. 21 (4 p.m. ET): Texas plays host to Clemson in the first-ever matchup between these two national championship programs. Tigers coach Dabo Swinney has two titles to his name, while Steve Sarkisian is searching for his first after taking over the Longhorns in 2021. The matchup features two of the nation's top defenses and a pair of quarterbacks -- Cade Klubnik (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/players/28874636/cade-klubnik/) (Westlake) and Quinn Ewers (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/players/26746721/quinn-ewers/) (Southlake Carroll) -- that played in a Texas high school state title game in 2020.
-
College Football Playoff bracket predictions and bowl picks - ESPN (https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/42853623/college-football-playoff-2024-bracket-picks)
Not really very illuminating in my view, "expert picks", OK then.
I expect "real" experts to largely agree on a thing, if indeed they are experts.
-
https://twitter.com/RedditCFB/status/1865773406534394132?t=x_8n8gFcGaUfZPPBZ_Fb1Q&s=19
-
I don't think it's an Alabama thing, it's an overall thing. If doing well vs the 60th-ranked schedule gets you in, don't bother with scheduling a 'name' OOC opponent when your conference schedule will be plenty strong enough.
I have to laugh at this a little bit because although one can argue the merits of it, it is literally the way that this is always gone. Losing a good game has basically always been punished more than winning a bad one. (although there might be some exception in the weird old poll era)
Ain’t no one raising a stink that the best at large team’s best opponents were 8-4, two 7-5s and then either a 7-5 team or 8-4 Mountain west team.
-
Multiple sources tell Channel 2 that Beck has a UCL elbow injury and it's a feeling that he will miss at least the Sugar Bowl.
-
If some team was left out because of a tough OOC slate which caused them to lose, fair enough, don't schedule tough OOC games. But I don't know of a team in that situation. Who was left out because of some tough OOC loss?
-
College Football Playoff Power Rankings: Oregon starts on top, Notre Dame among top three in field - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-power-rankings-oregon-starts-on-top-notre-dame-among-top-three-in-field/)
-
If some team was left out because of a tough OOC slate which caused them to lose, fair enough, don't schedule tough OOC games. But I don't know of a team in that situation. Who was left out because of some tough OOC loss?
sure as hell wasn't Bama or any other SEC team with an 8 game conf schedule
-
So, why complain about one's OOC schedule? I can't think of a team remotely in the running where that caused them to be left out. Your conference slate is out of your control.
Whining, not winning.
-
seems funny to me only because it will be very difficult for the AD at Bama to follow thru with his threat to weaken their non-con sched
like one guy said, "are they gonna play Mercer twice?"
-
I appreciate that [CBS] take on Ohio State. It highlights the playoff issue that we've talked about ad naseum. Regardless of how bad the loss to Michigan was, Ohio State is certainly good enough on their best day to win the title (see Alabama's arguments about inclusion--and a couple of its recent titles). Heck, they are good enough on their third or fourth best day to win the national title, depending on who they face, and how good a day that team has. There's no team in the field that Ohio State will be scared of.
I would put Penn State a little lower on the list--OSU did beat PSU in Happy Valley. PSU knows it has an uphill climb against at least two opponents. To my mind, it's the two SEC championship game participants, Oregon, and Ohio State who are most likely to win this thing. Notre Dame is interesting, but I agree that they don't have a big signature win. They did beat USC in Los Angeles, which isn't nothing (but also isn't mind blowing). They had an easier time of it than Penn State did.
Feels to me like Penn State got a break in the brackets, which will (probably) lead to playing the winner of ND/Georgia.
On the other side, the winner of Oregon/Ohio State is likely to get Texas.
I'll be surprised if it isn't one of those six teams, and a little surprised if it's Penn State--but if Georgia beats ND, but struggles at QB, that could be the opening for the Nittany Lions.
If I had to pick a winner right now, I'd pick Oregon. It would be Georgia, except for the injury to their QB. Oregon's path--having to play (likely) Ohio State, then Texas--looks like a tougher road than Georgia's, but...injuries.
-
The playoff champion likely will have managed to win 2-3 very tough competitive games with luck being a factor in each. Several teams appear to me to be "good enough". And they all could well get upset on any given.
-
I'm pondering the impact of the SEC CG and Beck's arm injury on the whole thing. OK, winning the CG is nice, losing your starting QB some thought would be a top draft pick is not. Past tense.
-
I'm pondering the impact of the SEC CG and Beck's arm injury on the whole thing. OK, winning the CG is nice, losing your starting QB some thought would be a top draft pick is not. Past tense.
Arguably Beck was a liability. The Georgia offense played better in the second half with the backup.
-
I'm pondering the impact of the SEC CG and Beck's arm injury on the whole thing. OK, winning the CG is nice, losing your starting QB some thought would be a top draft pick is not. Past tense.
Well, you didn't get the FSU treatment, so consider yourself fortunate.
-
The committee had no choice but to grant UGA a bye of course. They could have slotted them at 4.
-
The committee had no choice but to grant UGA a bye of course. They could have slotted them at 4.
Yes, Cincy.....I am aware of the AQ component. LOL
-
The committee had no choice but to grant UGA a bye of course. They could have slotted them at 4.
Well technically they could have put Clemson in at 4 and kicked UGA out of the bye.
Not that they realistically would have done that, of course. In the current system if the top 4 CCG winners weren't guaranteed byes, I could absolutely see them putting another team in the bye slot and moving Georgia down to 5th and Texas down to 6th.
But of course there wasn't a truly viable team to put in there. The only way that would have happened IMHO is if:
- Ohio State didn't lose to Michigan but lost to Oregon again in the CCG. At that point PSU would only have one loss and wouldn't have participated in the CCG and might move up to 4th (or higher), and Georgia out of the top 4.
- Ohio State didn't lose to Michigan and then beat Oregon in the CCG. At that point you'd have a definite argument that both Ohio State and Oregon would be top 4 one-loss teams and give potential cause to move Georgia out.
That said, I'm not sure they would have dropped a one-loss CCG winner Georgia out of the top 4 even if the QB was out like they did to FSU, because unlike FSU they didn't have two games of sample size QB play to evaluate from the backup(s).
-
It would have gotten interesting had UGA lost to Tech, which of course they very nearly did, and then beat Texas. They did have that head to head win over Clemson, so I'd guess they would have slotted at 4.
They were really on the ropes against Tech.
-
because unlike FSU they didn't have two games of sample size QB play to evaluate from the backup(s).
A point NO ONE wanted to hear last year in the moment.
If you look at the weekly rankings, this is precisely what the committee did. They played wait-and-see, giving FSU the benefit of the doubt, and they played like shit (in wins), causing the committee to omit them.
-
This seeding would have made for a much more interesting bracket to me.
First round / 2nd round
12 Clem @ 5 PSU / vs 4 Texas
11 SMU @ 6 ND / vs 3 Ohio St
10 ASU @ 7 Ind. / vs 2 Georgia
9 Boise @ 8 Tenn / vs 1 Oregon
This avoids rematches and interconference matchups in the first and 2nd round.
-
A point NO ONE wanted to hear last year in the moment.
If you look at the weekly rankings, this is precisely what the committee did. They played wait-and-see, giving FSU the benefit of the doubt, and they played like shit (in wins), causing the committee to omit them.
In favor of Alabama, who also played like shit in wins
-
A bit hidden in the apparent injury to Carson Beck is the injury to their punter, who was among the best I've seen at UGA, probably the best. They also lost their holder on kicks (Beck) which is more readily replaced, but I gather it will be Stockton. I doubt he had many reps as holder before going into the game, he COULD have fumbled the assignment.
Three weeks to get a new QB prepared is probably "good enough".
-
A bit hidden in the apparent injury to Carson Beck is the injury to their punter, who was among the best I've seen at UGA, probably the best. They also lost their holder on kicks (Beck) which is more readily replaced, but I gather it will be Stockton. I doubt he had many reps as holder before going into the game, he COULD have fumbled the assignment.
Three weeks to get a new QB prepared is probably "good enough".
In all honesty, they got about the best draw they could have possibly gotten. They face the winner of the ND/IU game in the quarterfinal, which as everyone knows I consider both teams to be fraudulent. Then they face the winner emerging from the BSU/PSU/SMU games, and I can't think that Georgia will be terrified about any of those.
I have to think that's a better route to the final game Oregon, facing the winner of OSU/Tenn, and then likely facing Texas in the semis. I think all three of those teams are more dangerous than anyone on Georgia's side of the bracket.
You really couldn't get a better draw to break in a new QB than this bracket.
-
I agree about the draw being relatively favorable, but for most teams, every of the 12 possible opponents are better than 8-9 regular season opponents, maybe 10-11.
-
Yeah, the playoffs are a level up in intensity from the regular season. Things can get out of hand in a hurry if your team is a little off.
-
Take Texas for example, Clemson will be one of the toughest opponents they have played all year. Clemson might be on a par with A&M, better than Michigan, not as good as UGA (which Texas recently played to a draw). And Clemson may be the weakest team in the playoff.
Take Tennessee as well, they had Alabama at home and UGA on the road and then not very much to compare with Ohio State, an 8 seed. Or take Ohio State, they beat PSU and nearly beat Oregon and handled Indiana, three teams as good as or better than Tenn, but the other 9 games?
These favorites need to forget they are favorites, these are all capable opponents relative to most previous opponents.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/HEfhH5W.png)
-
[img width=219.098 height=419]https://i.imgur.com/HEfhH5W.png[/img]
You forgot Boise St
-
(https://i.imgur.com/HEfhH5W.png)
Why treat things that are unequal as equal?
-
would never happen
SEC doesn't get more teams than the rest
-
would never happen
SEC doesn't get more teams than the rest
All kidding aside, 2 conferences are demonstrably, in every possible metric, better than the other two. Why reward all 4 equally?
-
Because of participation trophies
-
(https://i.imgur.com/b4l64sx.png)
It's is weird that the four bye teams are down this list, two of them at the bottom almost.
-
FPI favors Texas so every team Texas plays or potentially plays before the NC game, is "down the list."
-
The extra game should play into this even if Texas is 80% projected to win it, or whatever it is.
-
UGA has to win three games in a row, which is better than those odds times 0.8. So, Texas has a significant FPI number.
-
I rather briefly watched some you tube videos last night of folks predicting this and that. Suffice it to say they mostly disagreed, which is fine. If enough "experts" predict outcomes, one or a few will be right and hailed as maestros of CFB, for a year.
As noted separately, the 12 teams this year (and more) all seem "quirky", capable of looking great one week and awful the next, losing to "NIU" and the like. Ohio State has looked solid when played teams not having an "Mic" in their name. UGA looks pretty good when playing Texas but not so much Kentucky and Tech, not to mention Ole Miss and a half against Bama.
What to do? It's close to a crap shoot. We could have four upsets this weekend, not likely, but I'd guess at least one will occur. Then the experts will all tell us how Notre Dame didn't play anybody, their best win was "X", and Indiana exposed them. Or he Vols were battle tested in the SEC and Ohio State was exposed. Or how Penn State lost their backup QB. One "expert" picked Clemson over Texas. Why do we listen to these experts? It reminds me of the stock prognosticators who often get paid Big Bucks to disagree. If any of them really knew, they'd be investing, not yacking.
Historically, a 7 point dog will win about 1 time in 3, and we have 3 games in that range.
-
Useless predictions:
Ohio State 34 Oregon 27
Notre Dame 23 UGA 20
Penn State 30 Boise State 17
Texas 38 ASU 20
-
Historically, a 7 point dog will win about 1 time in 3, and we have 3 games in that range.
Which makes that win (1 in 3 times) an expected outcome. But it also makes the two losses expected outcomes. Statistics (and predictions) are a bear like that.
-
The bowl teams get extra practices. How many extra do the CFP teams get at each level? A lot I gather.
-
Fearless predictions:
Ohio State 31 Oregon 28
Notre Dame 20 UGA 24
Penn State 31 Boise State 20
Texas 35 ASU 20
-
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/YMmXyWFTecvS478V/
-
The bowl teams get extra practices. How many extra do the CFP teams get at each level? A lot I gather.
I think in all cases, it's as few or many as you want within the 20-hour rule.