CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on October 16, 2018, 01:58:59 PM
-
IMHO, these nine teams control their own destiny wrt the CFP:
- 7-0 #1 Bama
- 7-0 #2 tOSU
- 6-0 #3 Clemson
- 7-0 #4 Notre Dame
- 6-1 #5 LSU
- 6-1 #6 UGA
- 6-1 #11 UF
- 5-1 #14 Kentucky
- 5-0 #16 NCST
What about #6 Michigan? The Wolverines are 6-1 and winning out would include beating #24 MSU, #18 PSU, the B1G-W Champion, and taking out #2 tOSU which should open up a spot for the Wolverines, right? Well, in theory it should, but what if Bama loses either to LSU or in the SECCG such that we end up with a 12-1 SEC Champion and an 11-1 or 12-1 non-Champion Bama? I'm not saying that Michigan wouldn't get in or even that I don't think they should, just that I am not sure that it is a done deal.
The B1G's other plausible CFP contender (barring absolute chaos) is #19, 5-1 Iowa. Winning out for them would include a road win over #18 PSU and a win in Indianapolis in the B1GCG. They would need more help than Michigan because in addition to likely being behind a 1-loss non-Champion Bama and the potential undefeated or 1-loss ACC and SEC Champions they would also struggle to get ahead of potential 1-loss B12 and/or PAC Champions. Additionally, I'm not sure that a 1-loss B1G Champion Iowa would necessarily be ahead of a 1-loss Notre Dame.
Waiting for upsets:
The B12:
- 6-1 #7 Texas
- 5-1 #9 Oklahoma
- 5-1 #13 West Virginia
The PAC:
- 5-1 #12 Oregon
- 5-1 #25 WSU
- 5-1 nr Colorado
Neither the PAC nor B12 can produce an undefeated Champion so for now they are waiting for upsets. They also have the same potential Bama problem that afflicts both Michigan and Iowa.
Ranked teams not already mentioned:
- 6-0 #10 UCF - Would need absolute chaos to get close to the CFP.
- 5-2 #15 Washington - Would need absolute chaos to get close to the CFP.
- 5-2 #17 aTm - If they won out and LSU beat Bama (but otherwise won out) then they would be in a 3-way tie for the SEC-W. I'm not sure how that would be settled. Even if they won that, they would still have a problem because Bama could still be 11-1 and own a H2H win over them.
- 4-2 #18 PSU - Would need absolute chaos to get close to the CFP.
- 6-0 #20 Cincy - Would need absolute chaos to get close to the CFP.
- 6-0 #21 USF - Would need absolute chaos to get close to the CFP.
- 4-2 #22 MissSt - The good news is that both of their losses were to non-divisional SEC foes (UF, UK). The bad news is that they have two losses and they haven't played any of the best three teams in the SEC-W yet.
- 4-2 #23 Wisconsin - They still control their own destiny in the B1G but with two bad losses (BYU because they are a bad team and M because of the score) they would need absolute chaos to get close to the CFP.
- 4-2 #24 Michigan State - Like Wisconsin they still control their own destiny in the B1G but with two losses they would need a LOT of help get get there.
-
If they win out and win the Big it's a tough call if Bama/ND/Clemson remain undefeated.That would open a real bag of snakes.Bama would have knocked off LSU and either Fla or Gawja.Choosing that 4th team would be like sorting thru a knocked over tackle box
-
They absolutely do.
I mean if Bama, Clemson and Notre Dame run the table, those three spots are spoken for. Honestly, that might be UMs best bet is to have those 3 run the table, because that means LSU, Florida and Georgia all have 2 losses. It means NC State is a 1 loss non ACC champ. It means OSU is a 1 loss non conference champ that UM beat.
UM is clearly in over any of those teams. Yeah, it means their ceiling is #4, but who cares, they are in.
I think it's worse for them the more 1 loss teams you throw in the mix. Like NC State gets weird and runs the table, but then you still have a 1 loss non champ Clemson. And LSU beats Bama, but Georgia beats them in the SEC Championship so you have 1 loss SEC Georgia, plus 1 loss non division champ Alabama. I think that's where things get murkier.
Alabama and Clemson running the table basically means (in this scenario) it's UM or a 1 loss Big XII champ for that 4th spot.
-
A 12-1 {5 conference champ is going to be in except in extraordinary years. This is around the time when folks fret over having 5 undefeated teams at end of the year. It won't happen. We'll have one or two.
ND is in position to suck up a slot, possibly making this an unusual year.
-
yup, if one of the 1 loss SEC teams runs the table and leaves a 1 loss Bama, we know how that will go
-
yup, if one of the 1 loss SEC teams runs the table and leaves a 1 loss Bama, we know how that will go
Not necessarily. If Michigan is a one loss Big Ten champion with impressive wins of its own that could trump and, IMO, would trump Bama. A two loss Ohio St team that got smoked by Iowa wouldn’t be the same as a one loss Michigan who lost by a TD to ND in Week 1 of the season.
I really can’t see Michigan running the table and not making it to the CFP.
-
Michigan wins out and they finish 12-1 with a B1G title they are in. Period.
-
Not necessarily. If Michigan is a one loss Big Ten champion with impressive wins of its own that could trump and, IMO, would trump Bama. A two loss Ohio St team that got smoked by Iowa wouldn’t be the same as a one loss Michigan who lost by a TD to ND in Week 1 of the season.
I really can’t see Michigan running the table and not making it to the CFP.
Based on what we have seen from the committee thus far, I think the key factor for Ohio State being left out there was not the bad loss to Iowa, it was the two losses. The committee has been remarkably forgiving of bad losses but they have been completely inflexible about the number of losses..
-
If they win out and win the Big it's a tough call if Bama/ND/Clemson remain undefeated.That would open a real bag of snakes.Bama would have knocked off LSU and either Fla or Gawja.Choosing that 4th team would be like sorting thru a knocked over tackle box
There is no bag of snakes if Bama, ND, Clemson, and Michigan all win out. Michigan is easily in because Bama, Clemson, and Notre Dame would get the first three spots at 13-0, 12-0, and 13-0 while Michigan would obviously get the fourth spot at 12-1. There might be some debate if either Texas, Oklahoma, or West Virginia and either Oregon, Washington State, or Colorado also finish 12-1 but I am absolutely confident that Michigan would win that debate.
Where I think it gets murkier is if Notre Dame and either Clemson or NCST both run the table but the SEC produces a one-loss Bama AND a one-loss Champion. In that case Notre Dame and the 13-0 ACC Champion would get the top two spots but the other two would be up in the air between the 12-1 SEC Champion and an Alabama team that finished either 12-1 or 11-1 without an SEC Championship.
It is funny, the CFP has made the rooting interests of NC Contenders more similar to the rooting interests of CBB Bubble teams rather than the traditional rooting interests of CFP Contenders. For as long as I have been a fan of CFB, whenever my team was in the hunt I always had an interest in rooting FOR upsets in other conferences. Now, not so much. Now, all the rest of us (fans of non-SEC teams) are better off if Bama goes 13-0 because in that case there will almost certainly only be one SEC team in the CFP.
-
Now, not so much. Now, all the rest of us (fans of non-SEC teams) are better off if Bama goes 13-0 because in that case there will almost certainly only be one SEC team in the CFP.
Yup, that's what I pointed out above. If Clemson and Alabama win out, they remove any chance of those conferences getting 2 teams in, because it means NC State has a loss, and LSU, Florida and Georgia all have 2. So if you are concerned with seeding then I guess Alabama and Clemson losing opens up that path. In an 8 team playoff, that would be more relevant. In a 4 team, meh. Clemson and Alabama winning out removes any chance of a second ACC or SEC team stealing a bid.
-
I was honestly surprised by the question.
If Michigan wins out, the max available P5 undefeateds will be 3. And LSU and Georgia would have 2 losses each.
On the other hand, if Alabama, Clemson, or ND lose, there's still not an obvious way for Michigan to be left out, either. The main conversation about ND and Clemson to date has been about their weak schedules. If they lose, they have very little chance of backing in.
Alabama could back in with a loss, but if the final five to pick from is (1) 12-0 ND, (2) 13-0 Clemson, (3) 12-1 Michigan, (4) 12-1 LSU/Georgia (whichever was the SEC champ), and (5) 11-1/12-1 Alabama (either without a division or conf championship, depending on whether they lose to LSU or UGa) ... that's not Michigan's worst case scenario, it's Alabama's worst case scenario. Last year, the SEC got in two because the other candidates were less good than that.
If Alabama has 1-loss without a division or conference championship, against that list of 4 candidates, it's automatically out. And, even if one of those 4 eliminates itself, Alabama's only chances for the 4th spot are to (a) be running against a 2-loss team or (b) a 0- or 1-loss team with a very bad schedule, like UCF.
Meanwhile: holy prematurity.
-
Alabama could back in with a loss, but if the final five to pick from is (1) 12-0 ND, (2) 13-0 Clemson, (3) 12-1 Michigan, (4) 12-1 LSU/Georgia (whichever was the SEC champ), and (5) 11-1/12-1 Alabama (either without a division or conf championship, depending on whether they lose to LSU or UGa) ... that's not Michigan's worst case scenario, it's Alabama's worst case scenario. Last year, the SEC got in two because the other candidates were less good than that.
Eh, it is Michigan's worst case scenario as well. It might be the case the Michigan would get in over Bama in that case, but it is the only scenario I can dream up in which there is even a question for a 12-1 Michigan and thus, it is their worst case scenario.
Now I will point out that I started this thread by saying: "I'm not saying that Michigan wouldn't get in or even that I don't think they should, just that I am not sure that it is a done deal." So please note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with your take that Michigan would get in anyway, just pointing out that there would at least be a discussion. In any other scenario I do not think that there would even be a discussion.
-
I do think that we are exceedingly unlikely to ever have 2 teams rep the same conference unless the other candidates trying to get in have (a) 2-losses, (b) are 1-loss ND, or (c) non-P5. I want to say it's impossible ... but I don't believe in that word. So you got me on that technicality.
-
The real question will be whether a 12-0 ND get selected or a 12-1 P5 conference champ. That will depend on SOS among other things.
ND's SOS has taken a beating this year, though it usually is solid to very good. It won't get better.
If you compare that to a theoretical 12-1 LSU, I think LSU is a clear winner. So would be a 12-1 Michigan, though there you have H2H at play, so maybe not.
An 11-1 Bama might make it, but that depends on who else is around. Last year they were up against 2 loss conference champs.
-
Yes they do. Win out and they are in. There is no scenario where they wouldn’t be
-
Yes they do. Win out and they are in. There is no scenario where they wouldn’t be
Michigan? Let's say ND is 12-0, and Clemson and Bama are 13-0. That leaves one spot. Texas could be 12-1 and so could Oklahoma.
The committee might argue UM had already faced ND.
-
Michigan? Let's say ND is 12-0, and Clemson and Bama are 13-0. That leaves one spot. Texas could be 12-1 and so could Oklahoma.
The committee might argue UM had already faced ND.
If they cared about that, they probably wouldn't have facilitated an intra-conference rematch last year. And Michigan's resume would be better than Texas's and Oklahoma's anyway (better wins and a "better" loss).
-
Michigan's resume would be better than Texas's and Oklahoma's anyway (better wins and a "better" loss).
I agree on this. In theory there could be three P5 (and ND) undefeateds (Bama, ND, and Clemson/NCST) along with three 12-1 P5 Champions (Michigan, OU/TX/WVU, and ORE/WSU/Colo). In that case I am pretty confident that Michigan would beat out the other two 1-loss P5 Champs however, Oklahoma looking just completely dominant could alter that.
-
If they cared about that, they probably wouldn't have facilitated an intra-conference rematch last year.
This might be overly-semantic but while UGA/Bama was intra-conference it was not a rematch. I do not know if that matters to the committee or not.
-
A 12-1 M has nothing to worry about.
A 12-0 ND has nothing to worry about.
And yet I still feel some of you are underestimating the love a 12-1 non-champ Bama would get.
It would be a nice helmet-status litmus test, anyway.
-
This might be overly-semantic but while UGA/Bama was intra-conference it was not a rematch. I do not know if that matters to the committee or not.
It's not overly-semantic. It's just correct. I made a mistake.
-
Realistically I think there would be only a few circumstances to leave out a 12-1 Michigan, but I do think there would be one or two. Basically the only teams who might be above them there are:
1. Undefeated Clemson (Doubt 1-loss Clemson will be)
2. Undefeated or 1-loss SEC Champ
3. Notre Dame at 12-0 or maybe at 11-1 given the head to head victory, but probably would still take otherwise looking good down the stretch.
4. 12-1 or 11-1 Alabama who lost a tight game in the SEC Championship or to LSU (preventing them from going to the SEC Championship).
5. Maybe (and I highly doubt it), a 12-1 Oklahoma would be above Michigan. Would probably require big domination on their part going forward.
Really the only scenario I would fret much would be with 2 SEC teams (with Alabama not being the conference champ), Clemson, and Notre Dame in the running. I don't think all 3 of those are likely, but a bit of potential.
Edit: I probably do lean on Michigan getting in over Alabama in this case, but the Tide have been dominant this year and the committee has shown it only cares about conference championships to a degree (more as a tie breaker than anything else).
I would also lean on a 12-1 Michigan in over a 11-1 Notre Dame, but if the teams are viewed as close by the committee they will use that head to head. To me, so far, they have shown that becomes very relevant when (and only when) they put teams in the same tier. I think Michigan dominating down the stretch would probably put them a tier above Notre Dame, but that is not a guarantee.
-
Yeah the 13-0 Clemson, 12-0 Notre Dame, 12-1 LSU and 11-1 Alabama scenario is the only one that is even a remote possibility.
Even then, it's not enough. Who are Alabama's wins there?
-
One loss ND and one loss bama would be tough for a one loss Michigan to overcome
not saying it would be right, just saying
-
One loss ND and one loss bama would be tough for a one loss Michigan to overcome
not saying it would be right, just saying
1 loss Notre Dame, with a win over Michigan, maybe. 1 loss Alabama, whose best would be...? Texas A&M? 2nd best? Mississippi State? That would be a total sham.
-
true, but you don't think it could happen?
not saying it will, but I think it could
-
I have a bias against the 1-loss ND idea because I think they got off easy playing Michigan in week 1, have an underwhelming schedule, and have also looked underwhelming across those other games.
With that caveat, I just can't see an 11-1 ND getting in over Michigan, but accept that I'm not the one to ask and either way it would not be obvious, would be controversial, and the conversation: protracted.
Even then, that can ONLY come into play if Clemson stays undefeated, ND loses one, Alabama loses one, and the defeater of Alabama wins out. That's not implausible, but we are chasing narrow situations not to exclude Michigan but to maaaaaaybe exclude Michigan. And even in this one, I think Michigan would *probably* (a special kind of maybe) wind up on top of both ND and Alabama. Again, caveat, maybe.
-
1 loss Notre Dame, with a win over Michigan, maybe. 1 loss Alabama, whose best would be...? Texas A&M? 2nd best? Mississippi State? That would be a total sham.
This is the thing about Alabama - they're beyond the pure resume test. An 11-1 Alabama team would be favored against anyone in the country, including whoever beat them, because they're easily the most talented team.
-
This is the thing about Alabama - they're beyond the pure resume test. An 11-1 Alabama team would be favored against anyone in the country, including whoever beat them, because they're easily the most talented team.
Then let's cancel the season now, have Vegas tell us the 4 best teams, and go, if that's what decides things.
-
Yes. M*ch*g*n controls their own destiny.
A 1 loss P5 Champ will get in over a 1 loss non champ.
-
Another way to look at this, this is an ordered list of who I think the committee would rank:
- Undefeated Bama
- Undefeated Ohio State
- Undefeated Clemson/NCST
- Undefeated Notre Dame
- One loss SEC Champion Bama/LSU/UGA/UF/UK
- One loss B1G Champion tOSU/M (note that I left Iowa out of this even though they could potentially be a 12-1 B1G Champion)
- One loss ACC Champion Clemson (note I left NCST out of this even though they could potentially be a 12-1 ACC Champion)
- One loss B12 Champion OU/TX (note I left WVU out of this even though they could potentially be a 12-1 B12 Champion)
- One loss non-Champion Bama (either 11-1 with a loss to LSU or 12-1 with an SECCG loss)
- One loss B12 Champion WVU
- One loss B1G Champion Iowa
- One loss ACC Champion NCST
- One loss non-Champion Ohio State (either 11-1 with a loss to the M/MSU winner or 12-1 with a B1GCG loss)
- One loss Notre Dame
- One loss PAC Champion Ore/WSU/Colo
- One loss non-Champion Oregon
- One loss non-Champion NCST
- One loss non-Champion Colorado
The above list includes all potential undefeated and one-loss P5 (and ND) teams and that is the order in which I think that they would be selected. Note that:
- #1 and #5 are mutually exclusive.
- #2 and #6 are mutually exclusive.
- #3 and #7 are mutually exclusive.
Thus, #1 through #7 will produce an absolute maximum of four teams. Consequently, Texas (currently ranked #7/8) and Oklahoma (currently ranked #9/10) are effectively the "next team in" at this point - see #8 above.
-
I know folks think the committee gives the SEC some kind of sainthood here, but IF somehow UGA was 12-1, it would likely be a fairly unimpressive 12-1, no good OOC wins at all, and only wins over Florida, UK, and Bama in conference of any consequence, and UK of course could fade.
I don't think they would be better than fourth, depending. LSU on the other hand has one nice OOC win and would have significant in conference wins, so they would be higher.
A 12-1 Clemson would also not have a whole lot of track record, although the win over A&M on the road is pretty decent. Ohio State would have (does have) TWO wins OOC over P5 teams even if one of those is not good. That would be impressive along with a B1G trophy.
-
If they cared about that, they probably wouldn't have facilitated an intra-conference rematch last year. And Michigan's resume would be better than Texas's and Oklahoma's anyway (better wins and a "better" loss).
They did not engineer any rematch last year. Obviously, UGA and Bama had to win the first round and the NC was the first time they had played.
The committee MIGHT consider that ND win over UM as a factor. They might not.
-
Yes. M*ch*g*n controls their own destiny.
A 1 loss P5 Champ will get in over a 1 loss non champ.
I don't think I'd go that far. BUT I would say that a 1-loss Big Ten or SEC champ will get in before ANY 1-loss non-champ.
-
They did not engineer any rematch last year. Obviously, UGA and Bama had to win the first round and the NC was the first time they had played.
You and I talked about and acknowledged that yesterday.
-
I have not posted here about that until just then.
I agree that a 12-1 P5 champ gets selected over an 11-1 P5 nonchamp in nearly every case. One of these years we will have a 12-1 team that lost in the CG and we'll see how that ranks. Imagine 12-0 Bama loses to 10-3 Florida. Florida is out almost certainly, but is Bama still in?
Depends on alternatives of course.
We also will see a 2 loss team make it in the mix if the 2 Ls are solid and there are 3-4-5 really good wins out there.
I don't know how this rematch potential will play out in any of this, no data.
-
I have not posted here about that until just then.
Ah, it was a mixed conversation with the same conclusion:
You @ 5:39pm
Me @ 6:07
Medina @ 6:19
Me @ 6:56
-
I don't think I'd go that far. BUT I would say that a 1-loss Big Ten or SEC champ will get in before ANY 1-loss non-champ.
I agree with this. Right now, it is too speculative. It is difficult to go undefeated through a regular season and conference championship game. We are too far away from the CFP for me to speculate, now.
If ND is undefeated I think they will get in, but what about a 1-loss ND? We are too far away. If UCF goes undefeated can they get in? If Iowa wins out, wins the West, and somehow were to defeat Michigan or Ohio State, a 1-loss Iowa would seem to be a good bet. The fact Iowa defeated Iowa State, and Iowa State defeated W. Virginia adds to Iowa's resume, if Iowa State continues its winning ways.
Michigan and Ohio State probably control their destinies. For me it is just too early to think about these things. A 1-loss ND and an undefeated UCF, could enter the picture, if Iowa were the champ.
I sincerely doubt two teams from the SEC get in.
-
If ND is undefeated I think they will get in, but what about a 1-loss ND?
1-loss Notre Dame, IMHO would need all kinds of help to make it. Their win over Michigan is obviously holding up REALLY well as Michigan is now 6-1 and ranked #6 but as of this week's poll, Michigan is the only currently ranked team on Notre Dame's schedule. They do have a win over Stanford which is currently first among "others receiving votes" and a scheduled game against USC which is second on that list.
Pretty much every P5 Champion will have defeated a ranked and usually highly ranked team in their CG along with whatever ranked teams are on their regular season schedule. IMHO, Notre Dame's SoS is not going to compare well to any potential P5 Champion. That probably doesn't matter if 12-0 Notre Dame is being compared to 11-2 Michigan but what if 11-1 Notre Dame is being compared to 11-2 SEC Champion Florida?
I think that Notre Dame's chances to get in with a loss are minimal. Not only do I think they would be behind all of the undefeated and 1-loss P5 Champions, I also think that they might end up behind at least some 2-loss P5 Champions.
-
ND absolutely has to win out, absent it being between them and a 1 loss Michigan. They would have no resume argument over any undefeated or 1 loss team, including Michigan. They would just have to pray the committee values that head to head win over total resume.
-
I don't think I'd go that far. BUT I would say that a 1-loss Big Ten or SEC champ will get in before ANY 1-loss non-champ.
If it's Ohio State or Michigan, sure. Just as a 1-loss B12 champ gets in over ANY 1-loss non-champ-- as long as it's Texas or OU.
But if we're talking about a 1-loss champ Indiana or Purdue or Illinois or Rutgers or Iowa State or Kansas, getting in over a 1-loss non-champ Alabama, then I don't necessarily agree.
Now certainly those scenarios are unlikely, but these are the hypotheticals we're referencing here.
-
One of those schools would have an even more impressive resume because they would have had to go through all the helmets, whereas obviously the helmets don't have to play themselves. I would think a 1 loss Indiana with wins over UM, OSU, PSU, MSU, and maybe a Wisconsin or Iowa would absolutely be in. Now if it's a 1 loss non champ Indiana vs. a 1 loss non champ Alabama...eh.
-
The resume' is not as important as the helmet.
Do you similarly think that Iowa State with, say, an OOC win over Iowa, and then conference wins over Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Oklahoma again in the B12 CCG, would get in over 1-loss non-champ Alabama?
I sure don't.
-
First, I agree with what @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) said. Any one-loss Champion would have an impressive resume and in some ways a non-helmet would get a resume boost because they would play more helmets. What I am saying, and what I think ELA was saying is consider a 12-1 Ohio State where one of the wins was over an Indiana team that finished 8-4. Nobody would say "look, Ohio State beat Indiana, they must be good" but if you reverse it and consider a 12-1 Indiana where one of the wins was over an Ohio State team that finished 8-4 then people would point to that win as evidence of Indian's strength.
Second, I was confining my hypotheticals to things that are at least mathematically possible this year. One loss Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Rutgers, Iowa State, or Kansas are not possible this year because they already have three, three, three, six, three, and four losses respectively.
Wild hypotheticals for THIS season are difficult enough to measure but wild hypotheticals in undetermined future years are impossible. At least when we confine ourselves to things that could happen this year we have a given set of restrictions. Ie, the only potential 1-loss or better P5 Champions this year are:
- Bama
- tOSU
- Clemson
- LSU
- Michigan
- Texas
- Oklahoma
- Florida
- Oregon
- WVU
- Kentucky
- NCST
- Iowa
- WSU
- Colorado
That is it.
-
The resume' is not as important as the helmet.
Do you similarly think that Iowa State with, say, an OOC win over Iowa, and then conference wins over Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Oklahoma again in the B12 CCG, would get in over 1-loss non-champ Alabama?
I sure don't.
I still absolutely disagree and I still think that absent evidence for this we shouldn't assume it. In the four years of the CFP we have yet to see evidence of this.
-
You may certainly limit yourself to whatever you like. I'm responding to AC's assertion that was phrased this way:
"BUT I would say that a 1-loss Big Ten or SEC champ will get in before ANY 1-loss non-champ."
And I do not agree. I think it's pretty obvious this is NOT the case, in fact.
-
I still absolutely disagree and I still think that absent evidence for this we shouldn't assume it. In the four years of the CFP we have yet to see evidence of this.
Disagree all you like, you have no more nor less evidence than I do, because we've never seen a 1-loss P5 champ non-helmet in consideration against a 1-loss P5 non-champ helmet. Your opinion is no more nor less valid than anyone else's, regardless of whether or not it is passionately held.
-
Disagree all you like, you have no more nor less evidence than I do, because we've never seen a 1-loss P5 champ non-helmet in consideration against a 1-loss P5 non-champ helmet. Your opinion is no more nor less valid than anyone else's, regardless of whether or not it is passionately held.
The difference here is that you are the one asserting that the game is rigged and you are making that assertion without any evidence. If evidence arises to support that claim we should discuss it then. Saying it without any evidence at all just makes no sense to me.
-
There's plenty of evidence of helmet bias in the selection committee's weekly rankings since inception.
We may, or may not, have seen evidence of it in the final 4. But we've also never seen Illinois going up against Alabama.
-
MSU vs. Ohio State in 2015?
-
MSU vs. Ohio State in 2015?
Nah. MSU had the head to head and conference title and the same record. That’s different than the scenario Utee is talking about.
-
Nah. MSU had the head to head and conference title and the same record. That’s different than the scenario Utee is talking about.
The head to head part is different. But the same record/conference title vs. no conference title is exactly what we are talking about isn't it? Where the two schools both have 1 loss but only the non-helmet school has a conference title.
-
The head to head part is different. But the same record/conference title vs. no conference title is exactly what we are talking about isn't it? Where the two schools both have 1 loss but only the non-helmet school has a conference title.
The head to head changes everything though.
-
The closest was maybe OSU edging out TCU and Baylor in 2014.
Had Texas and Oklahoma tied for the Big XII Title instead of TCU and Baylor, does OSU still get in?
-
Good arguments keep'em up
-
The closest was maybe OSU edging out TCU and Baylor in 2014.
Had Texas and Oklahoma tied for the Big XII Title instead of TCU and Baylor, does OSU still get in?
There are always a lot of moving parts but I think that this is the closest we have ever had to "evidence" of the pro-helmet conspiracy among committee voters. Still, it falls far short of what I want to see before I believe in this conspiracy. That is because there are reasonable non-helmet reasons for that decision:
- Due to the B12's status at that time, neither Baylor nor TCU had a CG win to point to and additionally, neither was the "undisputed" (for lack of a better term) Champion. This also meant that both of their records were 1/2 game worse than tOSU's (11-1 vs 12-1).
- Both of them played an FCS team OOC (Samford for TCU and Northwestern State for Baylor).
- Ohio State's four OOC games of Navy, VaTech, Kent, and Cincy was VASTLY tougher than than either Baylor's or TCU's OOC.
- Ohio State's dominating 59-0 statement win in the B1GCG was better than any win either Baylor or TCU achieved.
- Closely related to #1, #2, and #3, Ohio State had a clear edge in SoS.
-
The closest was maybe OSU edging out TCU and Baylor in 2014.
Had Texas and Oklahoma tied for the Big XII Title instead of TCU and Baylor, does OSU still get in?
I think they would have. At the end of the day it wasn’t really a OSU/TCU/Baylor debate. It was an OSU/Baylor debate. The committee had ranked OSU ahead of Baylor for several weeks and just kept them there at the end. Ohio St had more going for them than just helmet too. They had a 12-1 record vs. 11-1, more ranked wins, and a stronger overall SOS.
The best test of this would have been if Baylor lost in the regular season finale against KSU that year. That would have made TCU the outright Big 12 champion. I think the committee really liked TCU from an eye test standpoint better than Ohio St. They had ranked them ahead of the Bucks from the very first poll that year. But when Baylor and TCU tied for the Big 12 title the committee recognized Baylor as the Big 12 champ because they had the H2H over TCU.
And by doing that it really became an Ohio St/Baylor debate and the committee just kept Ohio St above them. A TCU/Ohio St debate would have been much more interesting, IMO. I’ve always thought if you could have had a beer with some individual members of that committee with their full confidence they would have confided they thought TCU was the best team but Ohio St was more deserving.
-
The head to head changes everything though.
Again with the 2014 TCU-Baylor example Baylor won the H-H, but TCU finished ranked higher in the final playoff standings because their one loss to Baylor was a "better loss" than Baylor's one loss to WV.
Head to head changes nothing.
-
Head to head changes nothing.
Well it should
-
The head to head changes everything though.
Except when Baylor beat TCU head to head, and finished with the same record, TCU was still higher based on the eyeball test, or maybe the "better loss" test since their loss was to Baylor, and Baylor's loss was to WVU.
Same would apply to 2015 MSU-OSU. Each had 1 loss, OSU passed the eyeball test over MSU (even the most homer MSU fan can admit that), and OSU's one loss to MSU was certainly better than MSU's 1 loss to Nebraska. And OSU had helmet factor. But MSU was still ranked higher, because they were the conference champ, and OSU wasn't.
That's why I continue to believe helmet is not a factor, and yes a 1 loss Big Ten champ Indiana I believe would get in over a 1 loss non champ Alabama.
-
Again with the 2014 TCU-Baylor example Baylor won the H-H, but TCU finished ranked higher in the final playoff standings because their one loss to Baylor was a "better loss" than Baylor's one loss to WV.
Head to head changes nothing.
Baylor finished 5 and TCU finished 6 in the final CFP poll
-
I love this message board.
-
The committee liked TCU better than Baylor, make no mistake about that. But when the season was over the committee couldn’t really find a reason to keep TCU over Baylor. They had the exact same record against almost the exact same schedule and Baylor had the head to head.
And when I say the exact same schedule it really almost was. Besides 8 games against common opponents in conference they both played SMU OOC that season and then a tenth against each other. That’s about as close as two teams can get in playing similar schedules.
-
Baylor finished 5 and TCU finished 6 in the final CFP poll
Ah, forgot they flipped them in that final poll. Damn
-
Same.
It was still a fierce debate all the way down to the wire. It wasn't as though the H-H was viewed unanimously as the be all, end all.
-
Well it should be ;D
-
Two SEC teams could get in if the options all have two losses AND say Florida is 12-1 and Alabama is 12-1, losing a close one to Florida.
Could an 11-1 Bama get in? Never ever would that happen in the history of .... oh, never mind.
-
Baylor finished 5 and TCU finished 6 in the final CFP poll
You are right and I think that it is worth noting how that all came about:
By the time the initial CFP rankings were released TCU (@Baylor on 10/11), Baylor (@WVU on 10/18), and tOSU (vs VaTech on 9/6) had all already lost. For each week I'll list the ranking of the four eventual CFP participants (#1 Bama, #2 Oregon, #3 FSU, #4 tOSU) along with Baylor and TCU.
Week 10:
- 7-0 FSU was #2
- 7-1 Oregon was #5
- 7-1 Bama was #6
- 5-1 TCU was #7
- 6-1 Baylor was #13
- 6-1 Ohio State was #16
Week 11:
- 8-0 FSU was #2
- 8-1 Oregon was #4 (passed Ole Miss which lost to Auburn)
- 7-1 Bama was #5 (same)
- 7-1 TCU was #6 (same)
- 7-1 Baylor was #12 (passed Zona which lost to UCLA and UGA which lost to Florida, got passed by ASU which beat Utah)
- 7-1 Ohio State was #14 (passed Zona and UGA)
Week 12:
- 9-1 Oregon was #2 (passed FSU and Auburn which lost to aTm)
- 9-0 FSU was #3 (passed by Oregon)
- 8-1 TCU was #4
- 8-1 Bama was #5 (passed Auburn, got passed by TCU)
- 8-1 Baylor was #7 (passed Auburn, MSU, KSU, Ole Miss, and Notre Dame)
- 8-1 Ohio State was #8 (beat #8 MSU and passed them as well as all the teams Baylor passed)
Week 13:
- 9-1 Bama was #1 (beat #1 MissSt and passed them as well as Oregon, FSU, and TCU)
- 9-1 Oregon was #2 (passed MissSt, got passed by Bama)
- 10-0 FSU was #3 (same as Oregon)
- 9-1 TCU was #5 (got passed by Bama)
- 9-1 Ohio State was #6 (passed Baylor and ASU)
- 8-1 Baylor was #7
Week 14:
- 10-1 Bama was #1
- 10-1 Oregon was #2
- 11-0 FSU was #3
- 9-1 TCU was #5
- 10-1 Ohio State was #6
- 9-1 Baylor was #7
Week 15:
- 11-1 Bama was #1
- 11-1 Oregon was #2
- 10-1 TCU was #3 (passed FSU and MissSt which lost to Ole Miss)
- 12-0 FSU was #4 (passed by TCU which beat Texas)
- 11-1 Ohio State was #5 (passed MissSt)
- 10-1 Baylor was #6 (passed MissSt)
Week 16:
- 12-1 Bama was #1 - routed #16 Mizzou in the SECCG
- 12-1 Oregon was #2 - routed #7 Zona in the PACCG
- 13-0 FSU was #3 - barely beat #11 GaTech in the ACCCG, passed TCU
- 12-1 Ohio State was #4 - routed #13 Wisconsin in the B1GCG, passed TCU
- 11-1 Baylor was #5 - beat #9 KSU, passed TCU
- 11-1 TCU was #6 - routed ISU, got passed by FSU, tOSU, and Baylor
The key was week 13 because that was when Ohio State passed Baylor. The committee has said and their rankings have strongly suggested that they do not take assumed conference titles into account. The key here was that when they got to week 16 they added in Baylor's presumed B12 Championship (based on Baylor's H2H win over TCU). That was a crushing blow for TCU because it meant that, in the committee's view, TCU had to be ranked behind Baylor.
I believe, as @Kris60 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=79) indicated above, that once the committee did that the question wasn't TCU, or tOSU, or Baylor but simply tOSU or Baylor. That really hurt the B12 because while TCU's OOC was not good it wasn't horrible. The Frogs did play a pretty good Minnesota team. Baylor's OOC looked like something that Bill Snyder would have scheduled. Baylor's three OOC opponents were a 1-11 SMU team, a 5-6 MAC team and a 6-6 FCS team. That isn't just bad, it is an embarrassment.
Against teams ranked in the committee's final rankings that year:
- Baylor beat #6 TCU by a FG at home
- Ohio State beat #8 MSU by 12 on the road
- Baylor beat #11 KSU by 11 at home
- Ohio State beat #18 Wisconsin by 59 at a neutral site
- Ohio State beat #25 Minnesota by a TD on the road
The final nail in Baylor's coffin was that their loss wasn't much better than Ohio State's. Really, the biggest knock on the Buckeyes that year was that their loss was by two TD's at home at a VaTech team that finished 6-6. Baylor's was by two TD's on the road to a WVU team that finished 7-5. This is the place where TCU would have had a MUCH better argument. Their loss was by a FG on the road to a Baylor team that finished 11-1.
If Baylor had lost another game I think there is a good chance that TCU would have gone ahead of Ohio State. TCU's OOC wasn't as bad as Baylor's and included a win over Minnesota by a much larger margin than tOSU's subsequent win over the Gophers. Still, with the loss to Baylor, the Frogs also only had two wins over teams ranked in the final CFP poll (#11 KSU by 21 and #25 MN by 23). Additionally, just like Baylor, both of those wins were at home while none of Ohio State's three wins over ranked teams came at home (two road, one neutral).
A B12CG would have substantially changed all of this. If the current structure had been in place then, TCU and Baylor would have played each other in the B12CG. The other CG losers only dropped 0-5 spots in the rankings:
- #7 Arizona got smoked 51-13 by Oregon and dropped to #10.
- #11 GaTech lost 37-35 to FSU and dropped to #12.
- #13 Wisconsin got smoked 59-0 by Ohio State and dropped to #18.
- #16 Mizzou got smoked 42-13 by Bama and didn't drop at all.
Given those results, it seems fair to assume that the hypothetical TCU/Baylor loser would have dropped to around 6-11. That would have given the winner a third win over a ranked team to match Ohio State's three wins over ranked teams.
-
It was still a fierce debate all the way down to the wire. It wasn't as though the H-H was viewed unanimously as the be all, end all.
Personally, I disagree with the committee's decision there especially because in that case the H2H win was a close (3 points) win by the home team. Baylor had the H2H but TCU had a better SoS (their third OOC opponent after SMU and an FCS team was Minnesota where Baylor's was Buffalo) and a much better loss (by a FG to Baylor as opposed to by two TD's to WVU). I would have ranked TCU ahead and if I did a Power Rankings vote for the B12 I would have voted TCU ahead. I think that TCU was a better team. Also, when comparing Ohio State to Baylor/TCU I am MUCH more comfortable saying that tOSU deserved the CFP spot more than Baylor than I am saying that they deserved it more than TCU.
-
Personally, I disagree with the committee's decision there especially because in that case the H2H win was a close (3 points) win by the home team. Baylor had the H2H but TCU had a better SoS (their third OOC opponent after SMU and an FCS team was Minnesota where Baylor's was Buffalo) and a much better loss (by a FG to Baylor as opposed to by two TD's to WVU). I would have ranked TCU ahead and if I did a Power Rankings vote for the B12 I would have voted TCU ahead. I think that TCU was a better team. Also, when comparing Ohio State to Baylor/TCU I am MUCH more comfortable saying that tOSU deserved the CFP spot more than Baylor than I am saying that they deserved it more than TCU.
If you would have have asked me who I thought was the better team I would have said TCU. If you would have asked me who I would have ranked higher I would have said Baylor.
H2H may not be the end all, be all but you better have a pretty compelling case to overcome it and I don’t think TCU’s case was strong enough it. I don’t think “better loss” is enough or a win over Minnesota as compared to Buffalo is either.
-
Same.
It was still a fierce debate all the way down to the wire. It wasn't as though the H-H was viewed unanimously as the be all, end all.
What I meant by that was in the hypothetical scenario we were discussing between a helmet and non-helmet a H2H win/loss really does change the situation drastically. You have a real, tanglible result between two teams you are comparing.
-
If you would have have asked me who I thought was the better team I would have said TCU. If you would have asked me who I would have ranked higher I would have said Baylor.
H2H may not be the end all, be all but you better have a pretty compelling case to overcome it and I don’t think TCU’s case was strong enough it. I don’t think “better loss” is enough or a win over Minnesota as compared to Buffalo is either.
Well I disagree mainly because I think that if you are asked to rank teams then you are being asked to rank the team that you think is better ahead of the team that you think is not as good. You already said you thought TCU was the better team and to me that ends the debate.
Wading a little deeper into it, Baylor's H2H win was almost as weak as possible. It was a one score win by the home team. If Baylor had won by 14 or won in TCU's stadium then I would agree but that isn't what happened. Baylor beat TCU at home by a FG.
-
Well I disagree mainly because I think that if you are asked to rank teams then you are being asked to rank the team that you think is better ahead of the team that you think is not as good. You already said you thought TCU was the better team and to me that ends the debate.
Wading a little deeper into it, Baylor's H2H win was almost as weak as possible. It was a one score win by the home team. If Baylor had won by 14 or won in TCU's stadium then I would agree but that isn't what happened. Baylor beat TCU at home by a FG.
I think when ranking teams you have to balance what you think with what you know. I think TCU was better but I know Baylor beat them and had the same record against nearly identical schedules.
I probably lean a little more on what I know than what I think.
A couple years ago when Iowa was 12-0 I thought several teams were better than them but I couldn’t rank those teams above them.
-
People need to stop placing head-to-head on some kind of pedestal.
If we're both 11-1, and I lost to you, but you lost to some crap team, then I have the better resume. Period.
-
A couple years ago when Iowa was 12-0 I thought several teams were better than them but I couldn’t rank those teams above them.
Why the hell not? A 4-year old can rank teams by record. If a zero-loss team is automatically ranked higher than a team with a loss, then you're failing as an adult.
-
People need to stop placing head-to-head on some kind of pedestal.
If we're both 11-1, and I lost to you, but you lost to some crap team, then I have the better resume. Period.
That's simply not how sports are supposed to work.
-
You're the arbiter of what sports is supposed to be?
If sports were 2-dimensional, you'd have a point. But it's so context-heavy, that my post is true.
We know the better team doesn't always win.
We take resume into account, but we do not ignore the eye test.
When 2 teams are nearly even, we like to believe the H2H is a distinguishing characteristic. But if the H2H winner has shown the fault of a loss to a much worse team, are we to ignore it? THAT loss is the distinguishing difference between the similarly-talented teams with similar resumes.
-
Why the hell not? A 4-year old can rank teams by record. If a zero-loss team is automatically ranked higher than a team with a loss, then you're failing as an adult.
I didn’t say I ranked teams strictly by record. I would have LSU above a few undefeated teams right now. But record does play a part in it. And as far as being “adult” I think you have to be adult enough to realize that just because you think something doesn’t make it so.
At what point do actual results trump what you think? In 2015, I probably would have taken an 8-3 LSU team to beat that 12-0 Iowa team on a neutral field. So, should I rank them like that? I think the 2015 Ohio St was still better than the Michigan St team that beat them. Does my opinion matter more than the actual game result?
Tell me where the magical line is that record starts mattering and I’ll be sure not to cross it. I would submit that any 4 year old can wipe their nose on their sleeve and tell you what they think without worrying about facts or logic.
-
I think they would have. At the end of the day it wasn’t really a OSU/TCU/Baylor debate. It was an OSU/Baylor debate. The committee had ranked OSU ahead of Baylor for several weeks and just kept them there at the end. Ohio St had more going for them than just helmet too. They had a 12-1 record vs. 11-1, more ranked wins, and a stronger overall SOS.
The best test of this would have been if Baylor lost in the regular season finale against KSU that year. That would have made TCU the outright Big 12 champion. I think the committee really liked TCU from an eye test standpoint better than Ohio St. They had ranked them ahead of the Bucks from the very first poll that year. But when Baylor and TCU tied for the Big 12 title the committee recognized Baylor as the Big 12 champ because they had the H2H over TCU.
And by doing that it really became an Ohio St/Baylor debate and the committee just kept Ohio St above them. A TCU/Ohio St debate would have been much more interesting, IMO. I’ve always thought if you could have had a beer with some individual members of that committee with their full confidence they would have confided they thought TCU was the best team but Ohio St was more deserving.
Fully agree here and been arguing this a long time. The committee consistently toward the end was ranking it TCU, then Ohio State, then Baylor. They clearly liked TCU and said that at the time Baylor wasn't ahead of TCU despite the head to head win because they were not putting them in the same tier. TCU was in a higher tier than Baylor until Baylor got wins to put them in the same one. That happened in the final weekend. Once Baylor and TCU were considered close enough, then and only then was the head to head important. That meant Baylor went ahead of TCU. Ohio State was already ahead of Baylor though and what they did to Wisconsin in the Big Ten Championship only further cemented that spot. If Baylor had lost their last game and the decision was between TCU and Ohio State, I have never been at all confident that the Buckeyes would have got in.
-
I've always kind of agreed that head to head is over valued. It's a good metric, but is too much the end all be all.
Example: Two teams are fighting for a division. Team A blows away everyone else but loses a close one on the road to Team B. Team B has several close games and drops one of them to a so-so team. They both finish with 1 conference loss. Which is better?
In that situation team B gets the tie-breaker and I am not saying I disagree with that per-se, but Team A's resume overall is clearly better to me too. That's why I never had a problem with co-champs. If you can't finish with a better record, don't complain about having to share just because you got the head to head.
-
Medina, you should've been an appellate lawyer. You have a way with commanding old facts and relitigating .
-
I didn’t say I ranked teams strictly by record. I would have LSU above a few undefeated teams right now. But record does play a part in it. And as far as being “adult” I think you have to be adult enough to realize that just because you think something doesn’t make it so.
At what point do actual results trump what you think? In 2015, I probably would have taken an 8-3 LSU team to beat that 12-0 Iowa team on a neutral field. So, should I rank them like that? I think the 2015 Ohio St was still better than the Michigan St team that beat them. Does my opinion matter more than the actual game result?
Tell me where the magical line is that record starts mattering and I’ll be sure not to cross it. I would submit that any 4 year old can wipe their nose on their sleeve and tell you what they think without worrying about facts or logic.
That magical line is undefined, hence the variability of rankings.
I think we start out at 50/50 between resume and "who would win", but each of us leans away from that even ratio. Automatically ranking the unimpressive 11-0 Iowa team over the 8-3 LSU one is a safe play, but is ultimately dishonest.
At the same time, there's no real reason to rank an ultra-talented 6-6 USC squad over an obviously less-talented 10-2 Arkansas team. Splitting that difference is the challenge, of course.
I just hate the voters who blindly rank teams by losses.
-
That magical line is undefined, hence the variability of rankings.
I think we start out at 50/50 between resume and "who would win", but each of us leans away from that even ratio. Automatically ranking the unimpressive 11-0 Iowa team over the 8-3 LSU one is a safe play, but is ultimately dishonest.
At the same time, there's no real reason to rank an ultra-talented 6-6 USC squad over an obviously less-talented 10-2 Arkansas team. Splitting that difference is the challenge, of course.
I just hate the voters who blindly rank teams by losses.
Right. Record and actual results play a part in rankings too. So if that’s the case I don’t feel it’s dishonest if I put a 8-3 team below a 12–0 team even if I feel they are probably a better team. It’s only dishonest if my rankings are based solely on my opinion. They aren’t.
-
I also think that they might end up behind at least some 2-loss P5 Champions.
I don't.
-
I think often a ranking based on who would beat who (a power poll) is different from an AP kind of a poll.
In the AP, we almost never see an 8-3 team ranked ahead of a 10-1 team (both P5s). They basically ranked teams on record, with some minor adjustments. That 8-3 team could well have played a very tough schedule and looked good even in losing while the 10-1 team played almost nobody and edged a lot of weak teams.
Maybe the best "poll" is based on Vegas theoretical odds.
-
I've always kind of agreed that head to head is over valued. It's a good metric, but is too much the end all be all.
Example: Two teams are fighting for a division. Team A blows away everyone else but loses a close one on the road to Team B. Team B has several close games and drops one of them to a so-so team. They both finish with 1 conference loss. Which is better?
In that situation team B gets the tie-breaker and I am not saying I disagree with that per-se, but Team A's resume overall is clearly better to me too. That's why I never had a problem with co-champs. If you can't finish with a better record, don't complain about having to share just because you got the head to head.
That's a good scenario,there are coaches that will RUTS.Then there are still a dwindling few that will run out the clock or sit on the ball while substituting /rotating back-ups in.Ya know old school sportsman ship.That would be another wrench in the gears if in your scenario Coach A was the 1st and coach B was the 2nd.Then H2H would be the gauge,plenty of iffy/weird scenarios
-
If the on-field results take a back seat to the beauty contest, then you'd be foolish not to run up the score.
-
My issue is if we determine a playoff field, by who we *think* is best, why stop there and even have a playoff?
It's like we want a beauty contest, until we don't.
If that's the case, cancel the CFP, and award Alabama the national title now. They may not win it, but they are certainly the best team, no matter what happens from here out.
-
Except when Baylor beat TCU head to head, and finished with the same record, TCU was still higher based on the eyeball test, or maybe the "better loss" test since their loss was to Baylor, and Baylor's loss was to WVU.
Same would apply to 2015 MSU-OSU. Each had 1 loss, OSU passed the eyeball test over MSU (even the most homer MSU fan can admit that), and OSU's one loss to MSU was certainly better than MSU's 1 loss to Nebraska. And OSU had helmet factor. But MSU was still ranked higher, because they were the conference champ, and OSU wasn't.
That's why I continue to believe helmet is not a factor, and yes a 1 loss Big Ten champ Indiana I believe would get in over a 1 loss non champ Alabama.
On the Baylor/TCU debate: I agree and just want to point out that not only was TCU's loss to a better team (Baylor) but it was also only by a FG whereas Baylor's loss to WVU was by two TD's.
On the second part, I have been having this debate with @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) for ages now and I never thought of that example, thank you. MSU/tOSU 2015 is strong evidence that the committee is NOT biased in favor of helmet teams for all of the reasons you laid out.
-
Medina, you should've been an appellate lawyer. You have a way with commanding old facts and relitigating .
LoL, thanks! I almost finished law school.
-
I strongly agree with @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) on this issue. I have always thought that the oddity of using H2H as a tiebreaker is that in most cases it rewards a team with a worse loss. Ie, if Michigan loses to Rutgers but beats Ohio State such that both finish 8-1 it is odd to reward the team that lost to a horrible Rutgers team with a Championship. I understand why we use it but I see no reason why the committee should be forced to use it.
Another example:
If Notre Dame loses a game and finishes 11-1 while Michigan wins out to finish 12-1 I would absolutely put Michigan in the CFP over Notre Dame despite the H2H result. Michigan would have a much better loss AND a much better collection of wins.
-
H2H may not be the end all, be all but you better have a pretty compelling case to overcome it and I don’t think TCU’s case was strong enough it. I don’t think “better loss” is enough or a win over Minnesota as compared to Buffalo is either.
I agree that you need a pretty compelling case to overcome H2H but I have a sliding scale as to how compelling that case needs to be. In the TCU/Baylor case I didn't feel that TCU hit that bar in part because Baylor's H2H win was so close and at home. I would look at it very differently if Baylor had defeated TCU in Fort Worth by two scores. What I am saying is that, to me anyway, the relative strength of the H2H win is relevant to determining how much is needed to overcome it.
-
I strongly agree with @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) on this issue. I have always thought that the oddity of using H2H as a tiebreaker is that in most cases it rewards a team with a worse loss. Ie, if Michigan loses to Rutgers but beats Ohio State such that both finish 8-1 it is odd to reward the team that lost to a horrible Rutgers team with a Championship. I understand why we use it but I see no reason why the committee should be forced to use it.
Another example:
If Notre Dame loses a game and finishes 11-1 while Michigan wins out to finish 12-1 I would absolutely put Michigan in the CFP over Notre Dame despite the H2H result. Michigan would have a much better loss AND a much better collection of wins.
It also means Michigan has a win over OSU, while OSU has a win over Rutgers.
So the gap between the quality of the different win matches the gap in quality of loss.
-
It also means Michigan has a win over OSU, while OSU has a win over Rutgers.
So the gap between the quality of the different win matches the gap in quality of loss.
That is true but note your wording, "the quality of the different win matches the gap in quality of loss" (emphasis added).
That is my whole point. They match. One team has a better win and a worse loss while the other has a better loss and a worse win. They match, so why do we routinely assume that the team with the better win and worse loss is obviously the better team?
-
One of the issues when trying to decide between these teams are so few of them play each other. So if I get a result between two teams it means something to me.
I find it odd that other games mean more to you than a game between two teams you are comparing.
Lastly, I’m probably more interested in a team’s ceiling than their basement. Best win probably means a little more to me than worst loss. I know anyone is capable of getting crushed by Bama. I want the precious few capable of beating them.
-
That is true but note your wording, "the quality of the different win matches the gap in quality of loss" (emphasis added).
That is my whole point. They match. One team has a better win and a worse loss while the other has a better loss and a worse win. They match, so why do we routinely assume that the team with the better win and worse loss is obviously the better team?
Nobody is, I'm talking about the more deserving team. I don't care who the best team is. BTW, it's Alabama. If what you care about is who is the best team, then stop the season now, it's Alabama. If Alabama loses in the semifinals, they should still play in the national title game if what you want is the best team.
-
One of the issues when trying to decide between these teams are so few of them play each other. So if I get a result between two teams it means something to me.
I find it odd that other games mean more to you than a game between two teams you are comparing.
A sample size of 11 > a sample size of one (h2h)
-
A sample size of 11 > a sample size of one (h2h)
If that sample size of 11 is definitively in the corner of the team that lost I’m happy to consider that.
-
Lastly, I’m probably more interested in a team’s ceiling than their basement. Best win probably means a little more to me than worst loss. I know anyone is capable of getting crushed by Bama. I want the precious few capable of beating them.
I think this is a really interesting point and I think I agree with it. If we think that Notre Dame has a higher ceiling than Michigan then maybe we should want Notre Dame in the CFP instead of Michigan because Notre Dame's higher ceiling is the most relevant issue.
-
The "higher ceiling" notion IS interesting indeed. A team might be one that looks bad at times, but has looked great at others. Maybe it is injury related, or game scheme, or the QB is up and down, whatever.
Would you vote for them over a "Grinder" team that was consistent?
-
If that sample size of 11 is definitively in the corner of the team that lost I’m happy to consider that.
Technically, it only has to be over 1/11th in their corner to be considered. H2H isn’t some magic charm bracelet, it’s merely one game.
-
I'm glad its still October, and there are several weeks of games to be played.
-
I think UMs biggest worry is a 1 loss non champion Alabama. Bama has dominated every game, if they dominant 11 games and lose 1 quirky game I wouldn’t be surprised if committe voted them in. It’s not about who deserves to get in but who committee thinks is 4 best teams. and I guarantee there will be talking heads and committee members who think Alabama is one of 4 best in that scenario, maybe at the cost of UM, Iowa or OSU from the BIG assuming one of those 3 would be 12-1.
-
That and an 11-1 ND are definitely the only situations that could matter. The question is whether and how much. There's a fair chance the committee would put 12-1 Michigan over either (for example, if the committee rating really weighs resumé).
-
After looking it over, Michigan does not 100 percent control its own destiny, but it’s close.
Assuming Mich wins out, it’s 12-1, conference champ.
Worse case, there’s three undefeated teams ahead of it: Bama, ND, Clemson.
So the best competition would be a one-loss Big 12 champ or one loss PAC-12. So that means it could only be WSU, Oklahoma or Texas. Michigan goes if it’s WSU, Oklahoma or Texas are more of an issue. Michigan will have the best loss and most excusable one.
Michigan wouldn’t get jumped by a one-loss Bama, unless ND fell apart, and that takes a playoff contender out of it. I think a one-loss ND is the most tricky, but even then, enough teams will lose that 12-1 will be good enough. (I don’t think UM goes 12-1, but we’ll see)
-
SEC is out of the playoff if:
Kentucky wins out (12-1 champion)
Alabama loses to them in ATL (12-1 non-champ)
Florida wins out (11-1)
The same lack of status UK would suffer from also damns Bama as an (unfairly) unsexy loss. Florida would just be there, not mattering bc FSU sucks.
Imagine that!