Badgers have a chance to win outBut they won't. They are their own worst enemy right now. 500 yards of offense led to 17 points.
that will be plenty
Badgers have a chance to win out+1
that will be plenty
But they won't. They are their own worst enemy right now. 500 yards of offense led to 17 points.Badge clearly has a point here. They also kept Northwestern in the game with a lost fumble and two picks.
(https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2012/5-5/BtMcBTQ1Q2-2.png)
I simply hope the committee has to make a choice and not just pick the 4 teams with the fewest lossesThey will make a choice, to pick the four conference champions with the fewest losses.
if OU loses once and the Horns get a rematch in the CCG
Texas (sort of if OU loses twice)
I truly hope a Big XII team is in, then loses in their unnecessary championship game and it keeps the conference out.Amen. Not only is it nonsensical but it also made the road tougher than it needed to be. Not only is it the only conference with a round robin conference schedule and a CCG it is the only one that guarantees the top 2 teams in the standings will play each other.
I hate all CCGs, but theirs is a new level of nonsensical
1 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/Georgia.png) | University of Georgia | 8-0 |
2 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/alabama_logo.png) | University of Alabama | 8-0 |
3 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_east/NotreDame.png) | University of Notre Dame | 7-1 |
4 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/atlantic_c/Clemson.png) | Clemson University | 7-1 |
5 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_12/Oklahoma.png) | University of Oklahoma | 7-1 |
6 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_ten/ohio_state_logo.png) | Ohio State University | 7-1 |
7 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_ten/PSU.png) | Penn State University | 7-1 |
8 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/mountain_w/Texas-Christian-University.png) | Texas Christian University | 7-1 |
9 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_ten/Wisconsin.png) | University of Wisconsin | 8-0 |
10 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/atlantic_c/Miami.png) | University of Miami | 7-0 |
11 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_12/oklahoma-state.png) | Oklahoma State University | 7-1 |
12 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/pac-12/University-of-Washington.png) | University of Washington | 7-1 |
13 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/atlantic_c/Virginia-Tech.png) | Virginia Tech | 7-1 |
14 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/auburn_logo.png) | Auburn University | 6-2 |
15 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_12/Iowa_State.png) | Iowa State University | 6-2 |
16 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/mstate_logo.png) | Mississippi State University | 6-2 |
17 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/pac-12/usc-primary-200x200.png) | University of Southern California | 7-2 |
18 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/conference/UCF.png) | University of Central Florida | 7-0 |
19 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/LSU.png) | Louisiana State University | 6-2 |
20 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/atlantic_c/North_Carolina_State.png) | North Carolina State University | 6-2 |
21 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/pac-12/stanford_logo_360.png) | Stanford University | 6-2 |
22 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/pac-12/arizona_.png) | University of Arizona | 6-2 |
23 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/conference/memphis_tigers.png) | University of Memphis | 7-1 |
24 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_ten/Michigan-State.png) | Michigan State University | 6-2 |
25 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/pac-12/WSU_Cougars.png) | Washington State University | 7-2 |
Piles of games to go. Nothing to see here.I know what you mean, but I do feel that I learned something relevant here, specifically:
That the B12 is in relatively better and the P12 in relatively worse shape than I thought.The Pac 12 is in trouble because it's incredibly deep with no great team, which is a killer in this format.
Ed zacheryI don't know who this Ed person is, but he was wrong, clearly, as two undefeated P5 teams are well down the list.
if the season ended today the committee would have went with 4 undefeated teams
this is part of the problem with the rankings, it's almost like the committee wants to send a message, and they hold the whole "body of work thing" isn't complete until the final one, at which point they might flip it all around.
If this was the last poll, I sort of agree that wiscy and Miami would have been higher.
I wish they would rank some 2 loss teams above 1 loss, if the 2 loss team has some nice wins and the 1 loss team hasn't done squat. they do that a little bit with the 1 loss vs 0 loss but probably not enough. if you want to get better OOC games then you have to reward teams that lost those as well, assuming they didn't get their doors blown off anyways
A typical schedule for a playoff contender is roughly 4 solid opponents, 4 OK opponents, and 4 pastries (which really cannot possibly win), plus ostensibly a CG against another solid opponent. Out of the solids, you may find 1 really really good opponent (a PSU, ND type). The 4 pastries don't count and the 4 OK opponents don't really count either unless you lose to a Syracuse, and then obviously it hurts, but perhaps at times those losses get excused more than a loss like OSU had versus OU.Penn State didn't drop at all in the CFP rankings because last night's rankings were the first this season, so there was no drop possible. What PSU would have been had it beaten tOSU by 1 point instead of losing is unknowable, but almost certainly would be in the top 4. Probably #3 behind Bama and UGA. But that one point loss is still a loss. Just like Notre Dame's 1-point loss to Georgia is a loss, Clemson's 3-point loss to Syracuse is a loss, and Oklahoma's 7-point loss to Iowa State is a loss. (Granted, PSU's loss was on the road, but so was Clemson's.) And, just like Oklahoma's defense collapsed in the 2nd half against Iowa State, Penn State's defense caved in against Ohio State in the 2nd half. And maybe if PSU didn't get a very favorable review overturn--with which the TV guys disagreed--of what appeared to be a tOSU pick in the end zone, the final score is not as close.
It's weird to me that Penn State goes on the road to a hostile environment and loses by one point in a great comeback and drops as far as it did. If one pass happens to be dropped late, PSU is still #2, not #7 or whatever. In effect, PSU is almost out of the playoff, and they could very well have a top four team (IMHO).
For the Wisconsins and Miamis of the world, they have played some OK opponents and pastries, but have not played a solid opponent to date. They are for me akin to a Houston or Memphis at 8-0 at this point.
A playoff team can afford a close loss to a half decent opponent or solid opponent if they are 12-1, but that second loss is simply too much to traverse for most teams who rarely will have 2-3 impressive wins over very very good teams to compensate. That second loss is too much for compensation unless you happen to have beaten 2 or 3 really good teams, and you rarely have that chance (Iowa State).
that's why is first poll is absolutely meaningless
That's about to change, of course.
#14 and lower? all have 2 lossesNot so sure. We had a 2 loss team get in when there were only two teams that got in back in 2007.
that's my point
2 losses or more, done
probably be 4 teams left standing like last season
they wouldn't be well down the list if this was the last pollI think you are right, but not just because of the last poll. The Badgers and Canes have abysmal schedules so far. Wisconsin is 8-0 and their best victim is probably Nebraska while Miami is 7-0 with multiple too-close-for-comfort wins over questionable opponents and no win better than either FSU or GaTech.
Badgers and Canes would be in the top 4
I heard this on the radio this AM, but I'm too lazy to verify it.Agree and I think the committee would make a spot for that team.
but Auburn who already has 2 losses, and I think is ranked around #14. They have the potential to beat #1 Georiga, then #1 Alabama then get a rematch with likely a top 5 Georgia in the SEC title game.
While I don't think Auburn will win all those games, could you imagine them beating two #1 ranked teams and then one of them for the 2nd time in a month.
In that scenario I'd vote in a 11-2 Auburn over a 12-1 Washington, maybe over an 11-1 ND. I wouldn't put them in against a 13-0 Wiscy or Miami, but that'd be a pretty stout resume for a 2 loss team.
while I agree the final schedule for the Canes and the Badgers will be stronger, I also think it would be tough for the committee to put the undefeated Canes or Badgers as #5 if there where only 1 or 2 other undefeated teams, regardless of SoS.Ohio State losing those two games would not have too big of an impact on Wisconsin's SoS because in that case they would meet 12-1 Penn State in the B1GCG.
for example, Iowa, Ohio St. and Michigan could all lose another game or two. Leaving the Badger's SoS looking weak.
Let's say, for sake or argument, that Iowa upsets the buckeyes, Michigan wins "the game" vs the Bucks, Nebraska beats Iowa in Lincoln, Hawks stumble vs Purdue, and Michigan losses to MAryland and then badly to Wisconsin.
an undefeated Badger team is still a lock, or a Duh pick for the committee
Agree and I think the committee would make a spot for that team.SEC SEC SEC
Agree and I think the committee would make a spot for that team.Well Duh,I mean obviously,I mean,oh the hell with it
UGA can secure the East Saturday with a win over USCe and a UK loss to Ole Miss (which might not happen of course).Not flaming, honestly curious because I haven't seen any UGA football this year:
Preseason, I had hoped to win the East and beat Florida and maybe get an NY6 bowl bid. I didn't think the OL would be sufficiently better to be really good, but that unit has played pretty well overall, much better than last year. The defense was mostly back from last year's squad which was pretty good. The rushing attack eats clock which rests the D.
Well Duh,I mean obviously,I mean,oh the hell with ithave another drink or 3 and enjoy the games this weekend
Good question (about UGA). The offensive line was considered the weak spot, and they have played well overall, better than I expected. The 2016 edition was heavily weakened by bad OL play, really bad. They obviously have NFL caliber running backs, which is good, and a really stout defense, among the best I've seen at UGA. They fly to the ball and mostly play disciplined. The secondary at times has been had and could be vulnerable against a good team. Special teams, usually a weak spot under Richt, has improved to be somewhat better than average, and that also has helped. A lot.Well Georgia is obviously in if they go 13-0 and obviously out if they lose before the SECCG and then again in the SECCG. The interesting question at this point is what happens if UGA and Bama both get to the SECCG at 12-0 and then one of them wins a reasonably close game?
UGA made a LOT of mistakes against ND and still won, so there is that. That game might not have been close with a cleaner game. ND had all kinds of problems on offense against that defense but got bailed out by some silly penalties at times.
The other weakness I see is that this team is so run heavy on offense. They have not had to pass much (except against Missouri oddly enough) and they haven't. Defenses have done the obvious and loaded up to stop the run, but if Michel or Chubb get past the LOS they are a load, and Michel made Florida pay for playing 8 in the box. The freshman RB Swift is showing enormous promise and is ahead of two very good sophs at RB, and they have two of the three top RBs committed for next season.
So, if your secondary can handle man coverage and your LBs are smart and fast, you probably can slow their rushing attack and then force Fromm (true freshman QB) to beat you throwing it.
In summary, they are a very solid hungry talented team that can be beaten with the right defense and an mobile QB who can pass (think Barrett for example perhaps). Thus far, they have won most of their games early in blow outs and simply run clock effectively without much need to pass. That won't work against elite defenses. I wouldn't discount the win at ND though. ND has beaten some good teams, and that was the first start by a true freshman QB (Jake Fromm State Farm is his name now) who managed the game, but obviously has far more experience now and is pretty effective throwing the ball.
I read that Alabama would be a 6 point favorite over UGA right now. I suspect Ohio State would be 3-4 point favorites and perhaps Penn State as well and Clemson. But they are in the hunt obviously. Their LBs stack up well against about anyone.
pretty sure the fish eaters would wind up in the east with their buddies, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and the HoosiersCareful about saying Mizzou to the B1G west, that seems to ruffle feathers. (I think they would be an apt addition.)
the west would be forced to take Iowa State, Mizzou, Kansas, or the Sooners
I say let the Gold Helmet in ensuring them an ass beating.Thus having to join a conference - works for meI do not think it would do that. If they get in, without being in a conference, then they have no reason to join a conference. What would give them a reason to join a conference is if they went 11-1 but got passed on CCG weekend by a couple of teams that won CCG to finish 12-1. THAT would make it obvious to them that they needed to be in a conference.
ISU is never going to get a B1G invite. The conference is really a TV network masquerading as a conference and they want to expand viewership. Iowa State is from a small-population State and they aren't even the main team in that state.pretty sure the fish eaters would wind up in the east with their buddies, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and the HoosiersCareful about saying Mizzou to the B1G west, that seems to ruffle feathers. (I think they would be an apt addition.)
the west would be forced to take Iowa State, Mizzou, Kansas, or the Sooners
What are the possibilities that Notre Dame negotiates some kind of deal with the ACC to be included in their CG event under some circumstances without being in the conference?Currently the ACC plays eight conference games. Notre Dame plays five ACC schools this year:
They already are quasi-members in football. That would be weird. Money talks.
No, I think they would but Notre Dame and Oklahoma in the West an move Purdue to the East. This would make the two divisions more competitive.As a Husker, I like this even better!
I find it a bit interesting that the CFP committee releases preliminary "polls" (or rankings). It obviously is fodder for discussion, fine, but the BBall folks don't do this obviously. They COULD wait until all the data are in to release anything.They did last year for the first time. They released a top 16 in like mid-February. I'd expect them to expand it this year since it gets people talking.
UNC probably is a pair with UVA, just as OU is a pair with Oklahoma State, one won't go without the other, and the UNC/UVA pair think they run the ACC historically. League expansions always surprise me so I can't predict what might happen obviously.Are ticket sales a problem for the ACC?
Imagine ND worked a "deal deal" with the ACC where their games against say Stanford/USC/Navy "count" as ACC games, and if they are 7-1 or 8-0, they can play in the ACC CG if the other contender is 6-2 or lower, etc. In return, the ACC gets some more dough, s slice of the NBC TV pie.
I don't think that is likely, but it is vaguely possible if ND wants access to a CG.
And that COULD in some years make the ACC CG rather more exciting, and perhaps even sell tickets. It never seems to sell out. Imagine this year having Clemson-ND for example. Sold out. I kinda like it.
I wish I had ponied up for ND-UGA tickets (now) but that $700 on SH was a bit of a bite. I took the wife out to dinner instead. A few times.
I think Missouri will make the decision that is best for them, I don't think they would actively campaign to leave the SEC like they did the B12. But if an offer is there from the B1G it would merit strong strong conversation.#1 - slam dunk, wouldn't even be a conversation
and Nebraska and Illinois offer better rivals than anything they are getting in the SEC now.
#1 - slam dunk, wouldn't even be a conversationIs there anything historical between Iowa and Missouri? Of course one would think border states in the same conference would develop a rivalry, but not sure it would be immediate. Nebraska and Illinois would Instant.
#2 - don't forget that Iowa would also make a great rival for Mizzou
About the time "we" think we have it figured out, upsets happen and turn it upside down.That's why undefeated is undefeated. Even if you lack impressive wins, and even if we may not buy it, there is something to going 13 games without tripping up.
A 13-0 Wisconsin would be in the playoff, but that could be the only team.
About the time "we" think we have it figured out, upsets happen and turn it upside down.I almost want to say Go Big Red, but I would rather have OSU in the next 4 games, and have the B1G miss out on the playoffs.
A 13-0 Wisconsin would be in the playoff, but that could be the only team.
UNC probably is a pair with UVA, just as OU is a pair with Oklahoma State, one won't go without the other, and the UNC/UVA pair think they run the ACC historically. League expansions always surprise me so I can't predict what might happen obviously.I don't think that OU is necessarily tied to Oklahoma State. I think that if Oklahoma State stands to find a home in a power conference in the next round of realignment, then OU has a relatively free hand. Many Sooner fans want to see OU in the SEC. I don't. I think I join the President of the University of Oklahoma in hoping that our future home is in the Big Ten, for academic reasons more than anything else. The Sooner fans who want to see us in the SEC counter that if OU were to end up in the Big Ten, Oklahoma State might wind up in the SEC, and then use the cachet of being in the greatest conference in the history of the universe to become the dominant football program in the state.
Imagine ND worked a "deal deal" with the ACC where their games against say Stanford/USC/Navy "count" as ACC games, and if they are 7-1 or 8-0, they can play in the ACC CG if the other contender is 6-2 or lower, etc. In return, the ACC gets some more dough, s slice of the NBC TV pie.
I don't think that is likely, but it is vaguely possible if ND wants access to a CG.
And that COULD in some years make the ACC CG rather more exciting, and perhaps even sell tickets. It never seems to sell out. Imagine this year having Clemson-ND for example. Sold out. I kinda like it.
I wish I had ponied up for ND-UGA tickets (now) but that $700 on SH was a bit of a bite. I took the wife out to dinner instead. A few times.
I don't think that OU is necessarily tied to Oklahoma State. I think that if Oklahoma State stands to find a home in a power conference in the next round of realignment, then OU has a relatively free hand. Many Sooner fans want to see OU in the SEC. I don't. I think I join the President of the University of Oklahoma in hoping that our future home is in the Big Ten, for academic reasons more than anything else. The Sooner fans who want to see us in the SEC counter that if OU were to end up in the Big Ten, Oklahoma State might wind up in the SEC, and then use the cachet of being in the greatest conference in the history of the universe to become the dominant football program in the state.Howdy CW. Really glad to see you posting with us again.
My response to that is to ask how could anyone think that Oklahoma State could compete in the SEC. Heck, they only managed to score 52 points on us today.
I don't believe that and here is why:If Wisconsin were to win out, they will have beaten Iowa, a top 25 team now, Michigan, a top 25 team, and either Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State or Michigan.
They need a lot of help, being #9 right now and not likely to get above 8 this week. Miami will probably pass them this week.
If Bama and Georgia win out until the Dr. Pepper SEC championship and the game is close, they both get in before UW. The winner of the ACC is going to get in before UW. If ND wins out they will get in before UW. TCU or OU gets in before UW if they win out.
The PAC is probably out right now because they only real chance for them is Washington, and they still play at Stanford and at WSU. The should beat Utah.
UW dropped from #4 to #6 in the AP poll today.FIFY
The 45-17 road win against IU was not good enough compared to ND's 48-37 home win against Wake Me Up or OU's 378-375 road win against OSU1.
~???
I don't believe that and here is why:I understand the paranoia, I really do.
They need a lot of help, being #9 right now and not likely to get above 8 this week. Miami will probably pass them this week.
If Bama and Georgia win out until the Dr. Pepper SEC championship and the game is close, they both get in before UW. The winner of the ACC is going to get in before UW. If ND wins out they will get in before UW. TCU or OU gets in before UW if they win out.
The PAC is probably out right now because they only real chance for them is Washington, and they still play at Stanford and at WSU. The should beat Utah.
Howdy CW. Really glad to see you posting with us again.Badge:
If we have to see another round of expansion...
As for OU in the Big Ten, I'd be all for it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which would be the renewal of a yearly game with the Huskers to end the season. That would be incredible.
Would OU want to bring Texas with?
A one-loss Wisconsin team that doesn't get beat by 31-points to a rival, would get into the CFP, too.The should have won the other one too. They had PSU beat.
Our Eastern Division is so tough, and Iowa has play all the toughest, and battled them 2 times out of 3 to defeats.
I understand the paranoia, I really do.I don't think they will get there. I think they will lose this weekend to Iowa if the injury list is what I think it will be.
Even so, an undefeated Wisconsin B1G champ is in the CFP. And deservedly so.
Of course, getting to 13-0 is the trick and I wish your Badgers the best in getting there!
On the eve of the first rankings, this would be my playoff if the season ended right now:Slight change this week...
#1 Alabama vs. #4 Clemson
#2 Georgia vs. #3 Miami
Next two weeks should clear up if Miami actually belongs or not, so it's a pretty pointless snapshot of them right now.
Auburn has a say in all of this and is favored this weekend over UGA.Auburn winning out would make things interesting. It would obviously knock Georgia out as Auburn would have to beat them twice to win out but could leave an 11-1 non-Champion Bama in the mix.
If LSU had beaten Bama and USCe beat UGA and A&M beat Auburn, I'm pretty sure it would be obvious that the SEC's playoff shot took a hit.Obvious to whom?
I hate how the narrative, due to the CFP, is what a "disaster" of a weekend this was for the Big Ten. What we got was chaos and upsets, and a setup for a crazy finish, the stuff that makes college football great.I agree nice to have a conf.rep in the CFBP but mayhem is fine & riveting.....now that the Buckeyes have been pansed.4 weeks left lets have the chaos it's a long off season
And because we've embraced a system that rewards the opposite, this is "terrible" for the Big Ten, instead of an exciting four week race to the Rose Bowl.
And because we've embraced a system that rewards the opposite, this is "terrible" for the Big Ten, instead of an exciting four week race to the Rose Bowl.Yes, I agree. I'm just saying I don't like the incentives it sets up to call last wee "disastrous" for the Big Ten. Basically we are saying that these big businesses/conferences stand to lose a lot of money, if their likely CFP teams suffer losses at the end of the year.
I understand what you're saying, but I'd still rather see a 12-0 Wisconsin vs a 1 loss OSU, PSU, MSU or whoever, even if we weren't in the BCS/playoffs era.
wouldn't you rather see 2 heavyweights slug it out vs a pair of "good" but not "great teams"?
The Iowa/MSU BIG 10 game was phenomenal, but part of what made that game BIG was the entire nation was watching knowing it was a play-in/elimination game whatever you want to call it.
I'll still watch it as a BIG 10 fan, but I want my conference champion to distinguish itself, I don't want to see a potential 4 way tie in the EAST with 4 7-2 teams vs a 1 or 2 loss wisconsion. now that doesn't mean other years I wouldn't mind seeing a UM, PSU, OSU, MSU all 7-2 if they were all truly great. but I think all 4 of those schools are just good this year, nothing spectacular.
Yes, I agree. I'm just saying I don't like the incentives it sets up to call last wee "disastrous" for the Big Ten. Basically we are saying that these big businesses/conferences stand to lose a lot of money, if their likely CFP teams suffer losses at the end of the year.Pfft. Delany's office is closed now that M and O are out of the picture. He couldn't give a shit less about the rest of the schools.
Iowa/MSU is immune to that because it was, as you said, a play in game. No matter who won, the Big Ten was getting a CFP rep.
Now, from Delany's office, it is bad for business for Wisconsin to lose, and I don't like that having to be the mentality.
Pfft. Delany's office is closed now that M and O are out of the picture. He couldn't give a shit less about the rest of the schools.He (and it's his job to) certainly likes more money for the conference. And the last hope for getting a team in from the Big Ten rests on Wisconsin winning out. I'm not sure what the answer is (and it's not just a Big Ten problem obviously), but you reach this point of the season, particularly in a year where all but one conference team has multiple losses, and the conference has a vested interest in protecting that remaining undefeated team. It's not an ideal system in that regard. Hell, the Big Ten could have avoided "negative" headlines if chalk had held this past weekend, like it did in the SEC when South Carolina and LSU both looked a lot more ho-hum than Michigan State and Iowa did. Somehow having a nice soft middle to your conference is best for national perception.
The glaring difference is that Bama scheduled Florida St as their big out of Conference game instead of BYU.Neither is very good. Bama played FSU on a "neutral" in Atlanta. UW went to Provo.
Wisconsin needs to be in the top 4. I think QB and helmet factor are what's holding them back. People want to talk about schedules. Take a look at Bamas, seriously, mighty similar to Wisconsin. I think Bama is the best team, it's just idiotic the same standard doesn't apply to them. Clemson, while a good team, lost to Syracuse. Enough said, they have no business ahead of Miami or Wisconsin at this point.The flip side of Clemson is they have 6 wins over teams with winning records. Wisconsin has three and one of those is FAU.
My top 4 would be Alabama, Miami, Oklahoma, Wisconsin.
Auburn is the most important win for Clemson, and Wisconsin doesn't have one of those. That Syracuse loss just can't be written off so easily, they are a 4-6 team. Wisconsin has dominated every Syracuse they've played.I'd like to see Auburn go into the Iowa City Hornet Nest for a night game. Just to see what would happen.
Auburn is the most important win for Clemson, and Wisconsin doesn't have one of those. That Syracuse loss just can't be written off so easily, they are a 4-6 team. Wisconsin has dominated every Syracuse they've played.No they haven't. Wisconsin beat Purdue 17-9. They snoozed through a lackluster 24-10 effort over a terrible Illinois team. The Nebraska game was a 7 point game headed to the 4th. Even the FAU was a 10 point game basically the entire second half until UW added a TD with about a minute left.
Slight change this week...Georgia out...Oklahoma in...
#1 Georgia vs. #4 Clemson
#2 Miami vs. #3 Alabama
My overall top 10 right now:I've said before, I'm a sucker for SOR. I think this is actually relatively close to exactly what those rankings are, which I believe has OSU #15. I can quite assure you it has nothing to do with "stinging" from Saturday.
1. Miami
2. Alabama
3. Clemson
4. Oklahoma
5. Georgia
6. Wisconsin
7. Auburn
8. Notre Dame
9. USC
10. Oklahoma State
No love for the Buckeyes? I guess your still stinging from Saturday.
I don't have any major beefs, with the exception of Oklahoma St. Their OOC was awful, their best wins are Iowa St and West Virginia, good wins, but they didn't play "great" in either of those games in my opinion. I think Ohio St with better wins against Penn St and MSU should be #10, maybe #9. I'm not sold on USC yet.
I think the Buckeyes ceiling is probably going to be around 5, if they win out. They'd definitely pass ND, Okie St, Wisconsin (head to head win and conf title and badgers weaker schedule), Georgia (assuming they don't win SEC), probably (Clemson/Miami loser) although not guaranteed, Auburn (assuming it loses again).
they won't pass Alabama even with 1 loss (with or without a conference title), they won't pass OU even with 2 losses (with or without conference title), they won't pass the Clemson/Miami winner, they won't pass a Georgia SEC title winner, a USC PAC 12 title winner would be interesting, both got housed in 1 game, both have some decent wins. it might come down to who they get in their respected title games and how they look. not sure of tiebreakers, but looks like Wash St, Standford or Washington for USC. I'm guessing they'd prefer Washington as they'd be higher ranked. Bucks need Badgers to win out almost as bad as Badgers need Bucks to win out. then they could add a top 10 win, maybe top 6-7 to end the year.
You are forgetting about the helmet factor. The most important of all factors.
Normally I would probably agree. I don't think the Oklahoma loss is that bad, we were winning in the 3rd quarter. factor in they are currently a playoff team with the leading Heisman candidate and I don't think that's a killer.
now, the Iowa loss, yup, that might be the deathblow. but if it was, the committee wouldn't have just ranked us in the 9 slot. they wouldn't have ranked ND in the 8 slot who just got taken to the woodshed, and they wouldn't have ranked Georgia in the 7 slot that got blown out as well. USC got blown out by ND and they are at 11. TCU got blown out by Oklahoma they are at 12.
that's the other factor, a lot of top teams have been blown out this year, so that helps.
plus, if Wisconsin, Penn St, MSU keep winning, Ohio State will probably have 2 top 10 wins in PSU and Wiscy, and a top 15 win in MSU. one of their losses will be to a possible top 3 team. so would the committee overlook 1 bad loss to Iowa? I dunno, but they'd have overlook blowouts from the above mentioned teams if any of them were to get in the playoffs as well.
it's a lot of "if's" but I don't think it's impossible. if Clemson is the #2 team in the country right now after a lot of mediocre peformances same with Miami, and Oklahoma who gives up almost 40 points per game, then college football isn't loaded with great teams this year.
Having been blown out twice I think it's fair to say Ohio State is not going to the playoffs no matter what happens over the next few weeks. Wisconsin is it for the Big Ten if they win out. If Wisconsin does not win out I think the Big Ten gets shut out this year.I strongly disagree in part because of the bolded/underlined portion of your statement.
You are forgetting about the helmet factor. The most important of all factors.I disagree. Besides, if the Buckeyes end up as an 11-2 B1G Champion they are likely to be up against Notre Dame for a CFP spot and it doesn't get any more helmet than that. Actually it could be between 11-2 B1G Champion Ohio State, 11-2 P12 Champion USC, and 10-2 Notre Dame. Ohio State isn't going to win that based on helmet.
Buckeyes would be rooting for Alabama, Miami, and Oklahoma to win out. That would make the top three very easy, and leave OSU's competitors as a 2 loss non champ Clemson team, a 2 loss Notre Dame team, and the Pac 12 champ (along with 2 loss Georgia and 1 loss Wisconsin, neither I find very likely).2-loss non-Champion Clemson isn't getting in. Ohio State got in as a 1-loss non-Champion but that only happened because:
Helmet factor IS the most important of all factors, but I do agree with medina that in many possible scenarios, Ohio State would be going up against similarly helmety teams like USC and ND. They're not going to get the benefit of a helmet bump in those scenarios.Helmet factor is why Ohio State is ranked ahead of, say, TCU, for example.
Helmet factor is why Ohio State is ranked ahead of, say, TCU, for example.Agree.
Agree.TCU has a similar resume to Ohio State, but also has a very good road win - something Ohio State does not have yet.
I think ESPN's selection committee's rankings are also already reflecting a bit of an assumed loss for TCU in the presumed B12 CCG rematch. They don't do this for all teams, but TCU is a decidedly non-helmet and gets far less BOTD as a result.
Agree.I disagree. TCU's OOC opponents were:
I think ESPN's selection committee's rankings are also already reflecting a bit of an assumed loss for TCU in the presumed B12 CCG rematch. They don't do this for all teams, but TCU is a decidedly non-helmet and gets far less BOTD as a result.
I disagree. TCU's OOC opponents were:Arky was probably very good when they scheduled that game - which was on the road by the way. Not much you can do about that, and it should not be penalized.They made their bed. When you schedule that OOC you just have to accept the fact that you aren't going to get the BOTD against a team with the same record.
- FCS Jackson State
- 4-6 Arkansas
- 6-4 (in the AAC) SMU
Arky was probably very good when they scheduled that game - which was on the road by the way. Not much you can do about that, and it should not be penalized.Yeah, Arkansas is about the best tier of P5 opponents that's going to bother with scheduling TCU for a home-and-home. Prior to that, they had a 2-game series with Minnesota, and before that, Virginia. That's exactly the tier of P5 opponents that are going to be willing to schedule TCU for home-and-home series.
The strength of their conference foes has to be considered as well. Like I said, they have some really good wins to go with their two road losses.
Arky was probably very good when they scheduled that game - which was on the road by the way. Not much you can do about that, and it should not be penalized.Weren't we discussing just a few pages ago that Penn St needs to stop scheduling Pitt for this exact reason? Pitt was actually playing Top 25 football when the series was announced, and PSU had to deal with the pending sanctions. So, PSU shouldn't be penalized either then right? PSU lost two gut wrenchers, on the road, against Top 20 teams. Would you put TCU ahead of PSU?
The strength of their conference foes has to be considered as well. Like I said, they have some really good wins to go with their two road losses.
Weren't we discussing just a few pages ago that Penn St needs to stop scheduling Pitt for this exact reason? Pitt was actually playing Top 25 football when the series was announced, and PSU had to deal with the pending sanctions. So, PSU shouldn't be penalized either then right? PSU lost two gut wrenchers, on the road, against Top 20 teams. Would you put TCU ahead of PSU?I disagree with badge on this. I've seen the same thing happen to my team. Ohio State played a horrible Washington team in 2007 but when that was scheduled, Washington was good.
Weren't we discussing just a few pages ago that Penn St needs to stop scheduling Pitt for this exact reason? Pitt was actually playing Top 25 football when the series was announced, and PSU had to deal with the pending sanctions. So, PSU shouldn't be penalized either then right? PSU lost two gut wrenchers, on the road, against Top 20 teams. Would you put TCU ahead of PSU?Correct.
I disagree with badge on this. I've seen the same thing happen to my team. Ohio State played a horrible Washington team in 2007 but when that was scheduled, Washington was good.??
I disagree. TCU's OOC opponents were:medina, you're the one that criticized the scheduling itself, not the current quality of the team.They made their bed. When you schedule that OOC you just have to accept the fact that you aren't going to get the BOTD against a team with the same record.
- FCS Jackson State
- 4-6 Arkansas
- 6-4 (in the AAC) SMU
That's exactly the tier of P5 opponents that are going to be willing to schedule TCU for home-and-home series.That's cool, TCU is clearly trying to get marquee helmets on the schedule by agreeing to the series, and they've clearly not had a lot of takers since their typical OOC teams have been Arkansas/Minnesota/Virginia level opponents.
Ohio State has a home and home with TCU starting next year, maybe some ADs need to just try harder.
OSU will be in the same boat as Wisconsin in 2019, when Cincinnati is their "big" non-Conference game.Eh, you never know. You could go schedule Florida, and still have Cincinnati wind up as your marquee game.
That's cool, TCU is clearly trying to get marquee helmets on the schedule by agreeing to the series, and they've clearly not had a lot of takers since their typical OOC teams have been Arkansas/Minnesota/Virginia level opponents.Playing TCU is good for Texas recruiting. "Giving" them a return game I good business on OSU's part.
It's a pretty well known and understood occurrence that many helmets don't want to risk playing good but non-helmet teams like TCU, or Wisconsin. tOSU is obviously willing to do it which is good, and Texas has recently played Ole Miss, UCLA, BYU, Cal-Berkeley, and Maryland, so Texas has shown some willingness to do it as well. (Just not against Wisconsin ;)). But for the most part, helmets aren't going around granting a lot of home-and-home series to non-helmet P5 teams.
medina, you're the one that criticized the scheduling itself, not the current quality of the team.That is a fair point. I shouldn't criticize TCU as harshly as I did because Arkansas was intended to be a good OOC game.
I agree that current quality should be used to measure current season's standings.
But your statement above appears to be criticizing the nature of the scheduling. I don't fault TCU for scheduling Arkansas and a couple of scrubs any more than I fault Ohio State afor scheduling OU and a couple of scrubs. This year's on-field results should be all that matters when comparing the two teams and, when you take the entire OOC plus in-conference schedule to date, I believe TCU's and tOSU's results to be quite similar.
Having been blown out twice I think it's fair to say Ohio State is not going to the playoffs no matter what happens over the next few weeks. Wisconsin is it for the Big Ten if they win out. If Wisconsin does not win out I think the Big Ten gets shut out this year.Sorta of agree but clemson losing to Cuse is worse than losing to Iowa.Of course Dabo would have to lay another egg
Sorta of agree but clemson losing to Cuse is worse than losing to Iowa.Of course Dabo would have to lay another eggThey keep discussing how Bryant was hurt for that game, and I hate that. I'm sorry but staying healthy or playing through injuries is part of winning a title. Is it crap luck? Sure. But what's the downside to injuries then if we basically just discount any games impacted by them. Do we ding Clemson because they needed a couple TDs late to pull away from Florida State playing without Francois? Your resume is your resume, and Clemson getting a pass for that loss because a guy was hurt is BS.
They keep discussing how Bryant was hurt for that game, and I hate that. I'm sorry but staying healthy or playing through injuries is part of winning a title. Is it crap luck? Sure. But what's the downside to injuries then if we basically just discount any games impacted by them. Do we ding Clemson because they needed a couple TDs late to pull away from Florida State playing without Francois? Your resume is your resume, and Clemson getting a pass for that loss because a guy was hurt is BS.No kidding. Injuries are a part of football.
OSU will be in the same boat as Wisconsin in 2019, when Cincinnati is their "big" non-Conference game.2019 does suck, but if you look at the next 8-9 years they have some very difficult OOC, I would argue the best in the country. Back to back years we will play both Texas and ND in the same years, and I think one of those years we have Boston college as well. I don't know many programs willing to do that. The unfortunate thing is it will backfire,until the committee puts in a 2 loss team over 1 loss there's no benefit to schedule this way.
They keep discussing how Bryant was hurt for that game, and I hate that. I'm sorry but staying healthy or playing through injuries is part of winning a title. Is it crap luck? Sure. But what's the downside to injuries then if we basically just discount any games impacted by them. Do we ding Clemson because they needed a couple TDs late to pull away from Florida State playing without Francois? Your resume is your resume, and Clemson getting a pass for that loss because a guy was hurt is BS.Here's my issue there: if it was someone like Watson who just missed a game, and the team looked awesome most of the rest of the way, I could see it as a tiebreaker of sorts.
Based on history, my impression is that the committee puts more emphasis on wins than losses so I *think* that the huge win over MSU helps more than the huge loss to Iowa hurts but that is speculative, who knows.I believe they have said this, at least as far as quality of win vs. loss. We were so ingrained to compare losses. If you had two 12-1 teams, the pollsters generally favored the team with the better loss, even if the team with the worse loss had many more good wins. I'm not sure how they view it as far as margin of win vs. margin of loss.
No kidding. Injuries are a part of football.Yes, Pitt did in 1976. ANYONE could have handed off to Dorsett that year ;-)
Besides. I seem to recall a team winning a Natti with their third string QB.
I'm curious how the committee will view big losses as compared to big wins. Biggest losses by CFP top-25 teams:Maybe it's just me, but I think teams 5-13 are all very, very, very close in terms of how good they are. I just don't see a lot of separation in that group of 8 teams.
- Bama, n/a
- Clemson: by 3 at Syracuse
- Miami, n/a
- Oklahoma, by 7 vs ISU
- Wisconsin, n/a
- Auburn, by 8 at Clemson
- Georgia, by 23 at Auburn
- Notre Dame, by 33 at Miami
- Ohio State, by 31 at Iowa
- Penn State, by 3 at Michigan State
- USC, by 35 at Notre Dame
- TCU, by 18 at Oklahoma
- OkSU, by 13 vs TCU
- WSU, by 34 at Cal
- UCF, n/a
- MissSt, by 29 at Auburn
- Michigan State, by 45 at Ohio State
- Washington, by 8 at Stanford
- NCST, by 21 at Notre Dame
- LSU, by 30 at MissSt
- Memphis, by 27 at UCF
- Stanford, by 18 at USC
- Northwestern, (tie) by 24 vs PSU and at Dook
- Michigan, by 29 at PSU
- Boise State, by 19 vs UVA
Ohio State's 45 point win over MSU is the biggest MoV over a top-25 team all year. However, Ohio State's 31 point loss to Iowa is the 4th largest loss by a top-25 team all year. Do those offset?
Based on history, my impression is that the committee puts more emphasis on wins than losses so I *think* that the huge win over MSU helps more than the huge loss to Iowa hurts but that is speculative, who knows.
I believe they have said this, at least as far as quality of win vs. loss. We were so ingrained to compare losses. If you had two 12-1 teams, the pollsters generally favored the team with the better loss, even if the team with the worse loss had many more good wins. I'm not sure how they view it as far as margin of win vs. margin of loss.a good win helps you more than a 'good' loss doesn't hurt you. or rather, a good win vs an average win is a big boost, while a 'good' loss vs an 'average' loss are both similarly detrimental. so, a loss is a loss, but a win isn't just a win, it can be a WIN.
Maybe it's just me, but I think teams 5-13 are all very, very, very close in terms of how good they are. I just don't see a lot of separation in that group of 8 teams.i'd go ahead and throw in 1-4 as well. not a whole lot of separation this year, imo.
a good win helps you more than a 'good' loss doesn't hurt you. or rather, a good win vs an average win is a big boost, while a 'good' loss vs an 'average' loss are both similarly detrimental. so, a loss is a loss, but a win isn't just a win, it can be a WIN.Which I don't like. I agree we focused TOO much on bad losses, without looking a wins before, but not all losses are even close to equal.
I'm pretty sure they've directly said as much, due to Bryant's injuryYes. But how much forgiveness should they get because their so-so QB went out with an injury?
Yes. But how much forgiveness should they get because their so-so QB went out with an injury?I agree with you. I said the same thing above. I'm just saying what they've said. My top 4 was Alabama-Miami-Oklahoma-Clemson.
I don't agree with the principle of taking injuries into account in the first place. But, even granting the principle, Clemson's QB wasn't exactly a Mayfield, Darnold, or Rosen.
Clemson is getting the benefit of the doubt because they were last year's champs.
Similarly, Alabama has been pretty much ranked #1 (in the polls) all year and is now ranked #1 by the Committee because of past successes, without actually beating anyone very good THIS YEAR. Bama's biggest win is the comeback over Mississippi State in its most recent game. It was not nothing, and it was on the road, but it wasn't as good a win as Miami's over Notre Dame.
The Committee consistently violates the very rationales that it offers in explanation of its rankings.
I'd rank the top 4 this way:
1. Miami
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma
4. Clemson
Yes. But how much forgiveness should they get because their so-so QB went out with an injury?i'd have no problem with that ranking.
I don't agree with the principle of taking injuries into account in the first place. But, even granting the principle, Clemson's QB wasn't exactly a Mayfield, Darnold, or Rosen.
Clemson is getting the benefit of the doubt because they were last year's champs.
Similarly, Alabama has been pretty much ranked #1 (in the polls) all year and is now ranked #1 by the Committee because of past successes, without actually beating anyone very good THIS YEAR. Bama's biggest win is the comeback over Mississippi State in its most recent game. It was not nothing, and it was on the road, but it wasn't as good a win as Miami's over Notre Dame.
The Committee consistently violates the very rationales that it offers in explanation of its rankings.
I'd rank the top 4 this way:
1. Miami
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma
4. Clemson
ESPN's selection committee knows that the ACC championship game will effectively be an elimination game for the 4-team CFP. So it doesn't really matter in what order they rank them today. Their only intent in delivering rankings today, is to generate controversy which they believe will result in heightened interest in their weekly show and ultimately more advertising dollars. That is the sole purpose of releasing any ranking at all prior to the final one.Ed Zachery, because if the season ended today, undefeated Wisconsin would be in the top 4
Ed Zachery, because if the season ended today, undefeated Wisconsin would be in the top 4Over who?
I agree with you. I said the same thing above. I'm just saying what they've said. My top 4 was Alabama-Miami-Oklahoma-Clemson.Yeah, I saw your earlier post after I made mine. Sorry for any implication that I was correcting your point.
Over who?Yeah, it's a tough one to call. I think you might be right on that.
Helmet schools Bama and OU are in.
Miami is undefeated too, and has a (supposedly) awesome win over ND.
Clemson gets defending champion love.
If the season were to end today, Wisconsin would be #5.
End of story.
the Sooners would be left out for the sinful home loss to the CyclonesMaybe so. But then so should Clemson for its road loss to a much-worse-than-Iowa-State Syracuse team.
and they should
Yeah, it's a tough one to call. I think you might be right on that.My guess is that they could lose to either Michigan or Minnesota and still be almost certainly in if they win the B1GCG to finish 12-1. However, 12-1 with a loss in the B1GCG would almost certainly keep the Badgers out.
However, assuming both Miami and Clemson win out, they will still have to play one another, and that will result in elimination. If Wisconsin wins out, they're certainly in. If they take a loss, well then all bets are off, of course.
Over who?In a way I think you are both right. If there was some horrific calamity that prevented the last two weeks of the season and the CCG's from being played and the CFP committee had to create a ranking based only on what has already transpired I think what we see now would be it. The CFP would be:
Helmet schools Bama and OU are in.
Miami is undefeated too, and has a (supposedly) awesome win over ND.
Clemson gets defending champion love.
If the season were to end today, Wisconsin would be #5.
End of story.
Maybe so. But then so should Clemson for its road loss to a much-worse-than-Iowa-State Syracuse team.you're right
In a way I think you are both right. If there was some horrific calamity that prevented the last two weeks of the season and the CCG's from being played and the CFP committee had to create a ranking based only on what has already transpired I think what we see now would be it. The CFP would be:my argument is based on the committee simply ranking by the loss column. If the season ended today and they put the committee in a room and forced them to come up with the final 4, Wisconsin with NO losses would get the #4 seed if not the #3 seed.
- #1 Bama vs #4 Oklahoma
- #3 Clemson vs #3 Miami
you're rightNo offense taken, Fearless.
I would leave out Clemson instead of Oklahoma - regardless of what Clemson did last season
Oklahoma's loss is better and Oklahoma's win over Ohio St is better
sorry, just using Oklahoma as an example
It appears that the Committee regards Clemson has having less than one loss. Maybe half of a loss. Otherwise, why is Clemson ahead of undefeated Miami? Clemson's one big win at home over an Auburn squad that wasn't playing well at the time. Miami's one big win was at home over Notre Dame. But Clemson has a loss, to stinkin' Syracuse, so why are the Tigers ranked ahead of the Hurricanes?Clemson also has six wins over P5 teams with winning records. No one else is close to that. There is a really good chance they will have eight heading into the ACC CCG. That's why I mentioned earlier that even if Clemson loses to Miami they would at least have an argument over an 11-2 conference champ Ohio St (or any 11-2 champ for that matter).
my argument is based on the committee simply ranking by the loss column. If the season ended today and they put the committee in a room and forced them to come up with the final 4, Wisconsin with NO losses would get the #4 seed if not the #3 seed.Yeah, I agree with this. They know Clemson and Miami still have to play each other, so the spot is there if Wisconsin wins out, so they aren't overly worried about it, but if they had to end it now, I think Bucky would be in, whether or not you feel like they deserve it.
I could be wrong, the committee changes a few members each season and I don't know what they are thinking, but..... pretty hard to put in an OU or Clemson with a loss over an undefeated Badger team
Clemson also has six wins over P5 teams with winning records. No one else is close to that. There is a really good chance they will have eight heading into the ACC CCG. That's why I mentioned earlier that even if Clemson loses to Miami they would at least have an argument over an 11-2 conference champ Ohio St (or any 11-2 champ for that matter).I mean, yeah, Clemson would have an argument. But not a particularly good one IMO, since they already had a shot at presumed playoff participant Miami and lost.
yup, the Committee will be watching the Wisconsin-Michigan game with high interestFor sure. Which is precisely why they've positioned Miami and Clemson where they have. There's zero risk for doing so, the games will play out, and then they can craft whatever narrative they like to explain their final selections.
but, they can and will do whatever they like in the final poll
if that means dropping a one-loss #2 team to #5 to make room for an undefeated to get in, they will do it
I could see the Big 12 champ being left out if it is TCU, the B1G and ACC champs are unbeaten, and the SEC champ is Auburn. I think they would opt for Bama over TCU in that case.I think you guys put too much on helmet status. IMHO, the committee will always and forever select:
Helmet law.
Wisconsin has no wins better than any of those 3, as of right now their best win is an unranked Iowa squad that probably finishes 8-4.Northwestern is ranked and will likely finish 9-3.
I think you guys put too much on helmet status. IMHO, the committee will always and forever select:the truth
- All the undefeated P5 Champions
- all the 1-loss P5 Champions
- Other teams as necessary to fill in the four spots.
pretty hard to put in an OU or Clemson with a loss over an undefeated Badger teamonly because they are not in the ACC, Big Ten, SEC., Big 12, or the PAC
I don't think so. Are you putting an undefeated UCF in the playoff then?
Why not?
the Badgers are in one of the P5 conferences, therefore, they are in if undefeatedI'm not dismissing UCF or other non-P5 undefeateds
end of story - the committee either thinks an undefeated P5 team is that good or they don't have the nads to pass one over for a one-loss or 2-loss team they feel is better
I'm willing to agree this year sure, but I don't think you can simply dismiss a non power 5 team. if last year's Houston team, that had a win over a power 5 champion Oklahoma, and I think Louisville too (I might be wrong on that) would have gone undefeated.
The Houston 2016 schedule, assuming undefeated, would have gotten them in over a 13-0 Wisconsin. Because the Badgers schedule is that bad. It's not their fault in conference they just happened to miss the 3 best teams in the BIG not named Wisconsin in Penn St, OSU and MSU. But it is their fault OOC
yup, it's a different time and with 4 spots in the playoff instead of 2, but we still hear about the injustice of a one loss Husker team playing for the crystal football in 2001 after losing by 26 to, at the time #14 ranked, CU. and CU finished 10-3 ranked #9 in the final poll.
the only saving grace for OSU is about 6 teams in the top 12 have all been blown out this year, which seems odd to me. but if someone wants to say OSU doesn't deserve to get in b/c they lost by 31 to Iowa, I can't defend it. I would say it's a valid argument, and it's still quite possible that could keep them out vs say an 11-1 Miami.
It's not UW's fault that BYU went in the shitter and no big schools will schedule them other than for "neutral" games. It is what it is.you are certainly correct, Sir
It's not UW's fault that BYU went in the shitter and no big schools will schedule them other than for "neutral" games. It is what it is.Yes it is. BYU the last 10 years is an avg 8 win program. That's not bad, but BYU is getting most of their wins against Idaho, San Jose st, Utah st uconns of the world. Who did you think you were scheduling? Alabama? BYU would be a middling BIG 10 team at best. BYU, FAU, UTAH st. That's a murderers row.
Yes it is. BYU the last 10 years is an avg 8 win program. That's not bad, but BYU is getting most of their wins against Idaho, San Jose st, Utah st uconns of the world. Who did you think you were scheduling? Alabama? BYU would be a middling BIG 10 team at best. BYU, FAU, UTAH st. That's a murderers row.Me? I didn't schedule Bama. King Barry did.
I'm tired of hearing no one will do a home and home with Wisconsin, it's a total BS excuse. Ohio st did a home and home with Toledo, Michigan st has played at MAC schools, get off your high horse and quit asking for 2-for-1 games against "perceived" lesser teams and tell Barrie to man up and play power 5 schools. Wisconsin can't get a home and home with: Missouri, South Carolina, TCU, Iowa st, cal, Oregon, wash st, ucla, Texas am, Arkansas, ga tech, Pitt, west va etc?
Come on now, pick up the phone
1 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/atlantic_c/Clemson.png) | Clemson University | 11-1 |
2 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/auburn_logo.png) | Auburn University | 10-2 |
3 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_12/Oklahoma.png) | University of Oklahoma | 11-1 |
4 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_ten/Wisconsin.png) | University of Wisconsin | 12-0 |
5 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/alabama_logo.png) | University of Alabama | 11-1 |
6 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/southeaste/Georgia.png) | University of Georgia | 11-1 |
7 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/atlantic_c/Miami.png) | University of Miami | 10-1 |
8 | (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearmfiles/logos/big_ten/ohio_state_logo.png) | Ohio State University | 10-2 |
i didn't get to watch all of it, but from what i caught from the cfp spokesman, seemed like they would lean osu over bama in that scenario.I agree.
all bama fans are talking about bama/osu, but i've been saying best scenario for bama is ou losing to tcu. that pretty much guarantees bama is in. at least i think it does.
Ohio State has that one really ugly loss, which is obviously a knock, and Bama as noted has no particularly impressive wins, LSU and Miss State are "so-so" wins I suppose, but the MSU outcome was close of course. FSU was probably a decent team when they played. I don't see a real clear choice is OSU is 11-2 and Bama is 11-1 for the final slot.I think a lot of the Bama/tOSU decision (if that is relevant) will come down to how the committee views Bama's FSU win.
A Clemson LOSS still leaves them 11-2 and in the discussion against 11-1 Bama and 11-2 Ohio State (and 11-2 OU and TCU perhaps).I just don't think that a 2-loss non-Champion is a serious factor. I know Clemson has a stout schedule but the other contenders are all going to pick up MAJOR wins and Conference Championships this weekend.
There are still quite a few strange scenarios.
I disagree, WHO beat you is VERY important.I agree with you, but the committee has said it's WAY down their list. They look at WHO you beat and how MANY TIMES you lost, not so much who you lost to.
Oddly enough, a loss to a bad team is often excused as a "bad day" while a loss to a good team is evidence of something.
It diminishes Ohio State's loss to the Sooners. If the Sooners are a 12-1 CFP team then losing to them isn't so bad. It is worse if they are an 11-2 non-Champion that probably isn't going to the playoffs.It certainly seems that way. I posted in one of these threads a while ago that Ohio State getting in with a bad loss to VaTech is not the only example. MSU got in with a loss to Nebraska and Oklahoma got in with a loss to Texas both when UNL/UT were pretty weak.
I don't think the committee cares about losses that much, otherwise Clemson wouldn't be #1 with a loss to a 4 win Cuse team, Ohio State wouldn't have gotten in with it's bad loss to a 6-6 Va Tech team.
I think they care about how many times you lost, but not necessarily who you lost too.
It diminishes Ohio State's loss to the Sooners. If the Sooners are a 12-1 CFP team then losing to them isn't so bad. It is worse if they are an 11-2 non-Champion that probably isn't going to the playoffs.Kirby Hocutt, the Committee chairman, has almost directly said that the Committee does not look on that Clemson loss as a real loss. It's sort of half a loss. Because the Clemson QB--he of 7 TDs and 5 picks at the time--got hurt.
I don't think the committee cares about losses that much, otherwise Clemson wouldn't be #1 with a loss to a 4 win Cuse team, Ohio State wouldn't have gotten in with it's bad loss to a 6-6 Va Tech team.
I think they care about how many times you lost, but not necessarily who you lost too.
Here is something I'm really on the fence about:
What is Ohio State's best case scenario for getting into the CFP?
Originally I thought it was for both tOSU and TCU to win but now I'm starting to question that. If both the Buckeyes and Horned Frogs win that would leave Oklahoma at 11-2. That hurts Ohio State two ways:
- It diminishes Ohio State's loss to the Sooners. If the Sooners are a 12-1 CFP team then losing to them isn't so bad. It is worse if they are an 11-2 non-Champion that probably isn't going to the playoffs.
- It might theoretically put Oklahoma in the mix even as a non-Champion. That is bad for Ohio State due to the H2H loss.
The other side of it is that if TCU wins the committee doesn't have to decide between 11-1 Bama and 11-2 Ohio State. The committee can take both.
I just don't think that a 2-loss non-Champion is a serious factor.you already answered this.
Kirby Hocutt, the Committee chairman, has almost directly said that the Committee does not look on that Clemson loss as a real loss. It's sort of half a loss. Because the Clemson QB--he of 7 TDs and 5 picks at the time--got hurt.I agree with you and find it odd that Clemson's loss seems to be more "excused" than any others.
Baloney!
Oklahoma had 6 starters either out for the Iowa State game or who left the game hurt, but nobody mentions that each Tuesday night. And rightly so. Injuries are part of the game, and the Committee is wrong to give teams with injuries special consideration, much less to pick one team above all others to receive said consideration.
I think a lot of the Bama/tOSU decision (if that is relevant) will come down to how the committee views Bama's FSU win.the reality is likely somewhere in between. francois could have made a difference in some of those game, but not all. they're likely similar to lsu or msu, imo.
If the committee views FSU as a 5-6 team that also lost to NCST, Miami, L'Ville, Boston College, and Clemson then Bama's schedule is pretty weak. However, if the committee views FSU as the CFP contender that they were viewed as when that game was played then Bama's schedule looks a lot better.
Penn State I think is top-4 but they have no CFP chanceYes, although I think "top-4" should perhaps have been phrased as "playoff caliber". I frankly think that any of the top-10 could win it all and none of them really stand out.
Really? I really like their skill players a lot, but I thought their offensive line was just OK, and I thought their defense was a bit overrated. Very good team, but top 4? eh. The real problem is they had 2 chances to prove it OSU/MSU and they didn't. Nothing OOC to show how good they were. The UM win was by far their best, dominant effort, but UM is an 8-4 squad.
I'm tired of hearing no one will do a home and home with Wisconsin, it's a total BS excuse. Ohio st did a home and home with Toledo, Michigan st has played at MAC schools, get off your high horse and quit asking for 2-for-1 games against "perceived" lesser teams and tell Barrie to man up and play power 5 schools. Wisconsin can't get a home and home with: Missouri, South Carolina, TCU, Iowa st, cal, Oregon, wash st, ucla, Texas am, Arkansas, ga tech, Pitt, west va etc?The MSU vs CMU/WMU games were 3-for-1s.
I agree with you and find it odd that Clemson's loss seems to be more "excused" than any others.I may be picking at nits here, but I'm just tired of hearing that same old excuse for Clemson every week. I've never heard this "QB got hurt" rationale in the three previous iterations of the CFP-selection process. It seems probable to me that the Committee wants to rank Clemson #1 for some reason, but it doesn't want to say that reason, so it offers up this lame substitute reason.
At this point, however, I really don't think it matters other than for seeding because:
- I think that Clemson is in with a win and out with a loss.
- I think that OU is in with a win and out with a loss.
- I think that Auburn is in with a win and out with a loss.
- I think that Wisconsin is in with a win and out with a loss.
Seeding DOES matter, but at least this year, I'm not sure that it matters in the way that it normally would. First off, there is no significant difference between #2 and #3. Thus, the only real differences are between #1/2 and between #3/4. If we all thought that #1 was substantially stronger than the others or that #4 was substantially weaker then either the 1/2 or the 3/4 difference would be VERY important. As I see it this year, neither of those things are the case. As I see it, the top-10 are all about the same and it depends more on how your specific team matches up with them and/or how good of a day your/their team has.
- Clemson has a bunch of wins over .500+ teams (as discussed ad nauseam) but they also lost to Cuse.
- Auburn has some great wins but they also lost to LSU and Clemson.
- OU has some great wins but they also lost to ISU.
- Wisconsin looks great but their only ranked victim is #21 Northwestern and their best win outside of their home stadium was Nebraska.
- Bama looked great until Auburn but their best wins are #17 and#23.
- UGA has some great wins but they also got run off the field by Auburn.
- Miami has a great win over ND but they lost to Pitt and struggled with a bunch of mediocre teams.
- Ohio State has some great wins but their loss to OU wasn't terribly close and their loss to Iowa was a catastrophe.
- Penn State I think is top-4 but they have no CFP chance.
- USC could be an 11-2 P5 Champion but they got run off the field by ND and lost to WSU.
I strongly believe that any of the CFP contenders on their best day could run any of the others off the field on their worst day.
I think a lot of the Bama/tOSU decision (if that is relevant) will come down to how the committee views Bama's FSU win.I think it's hard to view FSU as anymore than they were. We just didn't get to see FSU with Francois this year. If the committee considers FSU a contender based on preaseason rankings of other polls then they are going against everything they claim to be.
If the committee views FSU as a 5-6 team that also lost to NCST, Miami, L'Ville, Boston College, and Clemson then Bama's schedule is pretty weak. However, if the committee views FSU as the CFP contender that they were viewed as when that game was played then Bama's schedule looks a lot better.
The MSU vs CMU/WMU games were 3-for-1s.Don't let the facts get in the way of a good (bad) narrative.
I don't worry about who is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 since it confers no advantage. Obviously finishing at Five is the "almost" position for whiners. Win your conference with one or zero losses and you're almost certainly in the Dance. Get two losses or don't win your conference and you are simply at the whims of the committee. Too bad.I disagree. Where a team is sent makes a big difference.
no sense having 8 spots for the 4 whinerslove this.
All this "will OSU make the playoffs" talk is leaving a quesy feeling for me. There is a really good Wisconsin team waiting in Indianapolis, just lickin' their chops and ready to open a can.I've engaged in a lot of "will OSU make the playoffs" talk and I want to clarify something here:
the reality is likely somewhere in between. francois could have made a difference in some of those game, but not all. they're likely similar to lsu or msu, imo.I agree with you but that really doesn't clarify anything and I don't know what the committee will do.
Yes, I flat view FSU as a 6-6 ACC also-ranQB is so important, by far most important position on the entire team. Francois was really good, but he wouldn't have made them a top 10 team. He was a good notch below JT Barrett or Trace McSorley. JT is like an A college QB, McSorley an A-. Francois a really good QB, but not a truly great one. He's not a transcendent college QB, program elevator like a Baker Mayfield or Tebow- those guys are like A++. Francois is just not anywhere close to that. I'd say he's a really good B+ college QB.
I didn't watch all of their games or even all 6 losses, butif you did watch those games, how else could you see them?
as a top 10 team with a few bad breaks?
The MSU vs CMU/WMU games were 3-for-1s.Just look backward. And not too far backward either.
Then I'm looking forward to Wisconsin play at a MAC school. I never said MSU had a home and home, I said they were willing to give a MAC school a home game. Wisconsin's "too good" to do something like that. They're "too good" that no one in division 1 is willing to scheduled a "guaranteed loss" in camp randall. They're "too good" that no one, in any of the other power 4 conferences will play them.
But I'm really looking forward to Western KY, New Mexico and BYU next year. I'm sure season ticket holders are as well.
2019 Kent St, South Florida, Central Michigan Yipee!
2019 (2017 record shown below)it will certainly look good enough if the Badgers are undefeated in December
AT South Florida, 9-2, could be a tough road game in Tampa if Strong sticks around
Central Michigan, 8-4, a good MAC team
Kent St 2-10, gimme game
Doesn't look all that bad from here.
QB is so important, by far most important position on the entire team. Francois was really good, but he wouldn't have made them a top 10 team. He was a good notch below JT Barrett or Trace McSorley. JT is like an A college QB, McSorley an A-. Francois a really good QB, but not a truly great one. He's not a transcendent college QB, program elevator like a Baker Mayfield or Tebow- those guys are like A++. Francois is just not anywhere close to that. I'd say he's a really good B+ college QB.this was my point. not that fsu would be top 10 with francois. and not that they should be viewed as a great team when bama beat them.
FSU was a lot like Michigan to start the season- way overrated. Michigan and FSU both should've been rated 18-25 range pre-season based on what they lost the year before.
Just look backward. And not too far backward either.If you were to go back just one more year you'd see that UW played a return game against NIU. NIU chose to move it to Soldier Field to accommodate where most of its fans are located.
Try again?
I went back to 2012 and can't find Wisconsin playing a road game at a MAC school, so I guess you'll have to enlighten me on this one
OK, then why the F do you keep pushing that UW should play them home and away?
any time you have to say a "good mac team" that's not saying much
WAY too many teams in this entire mess. They should cut it down to 64 teams in 4 major conferences. Winner of each conference goes to the playoff. P5 teams should only schedule P5 teams, no "Group of 5" or FCS. Group of 5 should go start their own playoff, because they're never getting into the one that is there now. Never.Sounds reasonable to me, except that P5 schools with G5 schools in-state like to throw bones around.
Sounds reasonable to me, except that P5 schools with G5 schools in-state like to throw bones around.I love that idea as well. I'm not crazy about G5 and I absolutely loathe playing FCS teams. I hate that some conferences only play 8 conference games. What's the point of a conference if you don't play each other? Looking at you SEC. Moving to 10 conference games and 2 OOC's games with 1 P5 OOC and 1 "throw a bone and fat check to the in-state" G5 sounds more than reasonable.
I'd rather go 10 conference games with 2 OOC games. One P5 and one G5. No FCS under any circumstances.
Sounds reasonable to me, except that P5 schools with G5 schools in-state like to throw bones around.9 conf games. 4 divisions of 4 teams. play all 3 in div (3 games), have 1 lock from each other div (3 games), and 1 rotate from other div (3 games).
I'd rather go 10 conference games with 2 OOC games. One P5 and one G5. No FCS under any circumstances.
OK, then why the F do you keep pushing that UW should play them home and away?Bigger than UW (me)? Which schools have given MAC schools a 1-1? I'd like to know.
never said you should, was just pointing out I think it's ridiculous to say you're too good to do that for less than 2-for-1 when schools bigger or equal than you have done it for less.
But I guess Texas, ND and BC probably don't want to schedule that "guaranteed loss" against you guys.I keep giving you opportunities to stop. But you just won't...
Yes, I flat view FSU as a 6-6 ACC also-ranFearless: FWIW, FSU is 5-6 with a game Saturday against UL-Monroe.
I didn't watch all of their games or even all 6 losses, butif you did watch those games, how else could you see them?
as a top 10 team with a few bad breaks?
Fearless: FWIW, FSU is 5-6 with a game Saturday against UL-Monroe.a 5-6 team without a coach. Might just finish 5-7. What a disaster of a season for FSU. Feel bad for their fans.
a 5-6 team without a coach. Might just finish 5-7. What a disaster of a season for FSU. Feel bad for their fans.Both 5*s Cam Akers(RB) & Marvin Wilson(DL) came down to The Seminoles & Buckeyes.Wonder if they'd flip now if they could.One good look at Jimbo Fisher should have told them something ain't just right
Back on "topic" (I know).What?
I have a great idea. Lets go ahead and schedule our conference's championship game at no one's home field during rush hour in one of the most congested places in the country.I was thinking the same thing.
Lot of empty seats.missed a very good game
The CG losers would seem to be out. Penn State is out. So, the most probable thing is an OU win and OSU win according to the betting, and that means OSU OR Alabama, which is entertaining.yes, entertaining
The Pac was stupid to move their CCG away from the home stadium of the higher seeded or ranked team, especially since they insist on playing their CCG on a Friday.I think that the perception is that a CCG at one of the teams' home field is somewhat rinky-dink for a P5 conference. Maybe Levi's Field wasn't the best venue, though. Also, the winner of the Pac-12's CCG isn't going to the playoff, which has become the be-all and end-all.
Hopefully when they most likely move it to Vegas in a few years attendance will improve.
missed a very good gameYep. Can't ask for more than the trailing team having possession with a decent shot to win or tie as time winds down.
If Ohio State wins tonight and things break right (and maybe even if they don't), the committee will find a way to get them in. It's what they do.If there was ever a team the committee would give deference to at the expense of their beloved Ohio State, it's Alabama. And they'll have the "blowout at Iowa" excuse to use. We'll be hearing about that Iowa game all day - more so than the games yesterday.
Lots of watchful eyeballs to satisfy up in these parts.
If Ohio State wins tonight and things break right (and maybe even if they don't), the committee will find a way to get them in. It's what they do.Barry Alvarez was on that committee at one time. You have probably met him a few times and maybe even know him. Do you think he was taking marching orders from ESPN when he served?
Lots of watchful eyeballs to satisfy up in these parts.
Barry Alvarez was on that committee at one time. You have probably met him a few times and maybe even know him. Do you think he was taking marching orders from ESPN when he served?He resigned from the committee for some reason. He was asked to chair it, and refused.
I ask because it seems like a lot of people have that attitude, including you.
If there was ever a team the committee would give deference to at the expense of their beloved Ohio State, it's Alabama. And they'll have the "blowout at Iowa" excuse to use. We'll be hearing about that Iowa game all day - more so than the games yesterday.Probably true. And it's probably OK too. That is a major blemish.
does the committee reward SOS and conference championship?This will very interesting. OSU is falling back on the conference champion thing this year. But last year it wasn't. Last year Saban was quoted as saying conference championships matter. But not this year.
or
fewer losses and the "bama" factor
I'm guessing, just like the past seasons, they simply take the 4 one-loss teams that did not lose yesterday.
This will very interesting. OSU is falling back on the conference champion thing this year. But last year it wasn't. Last year Saban was quoted as saying conference championships matter. But not this year.Weird situation. Neither of those teams truly deserves it. And both look very flawed. Ironically, I think OSU has the better defense right now, and Bama the better Offense. BUt who is next after those two? USC? Maybe.
Hehe. Should be fun over the next month or so.
Tough call but I agreed with Bama. The Iowa loss was an anchor. If they lose that by a FG I think the committee forgives it but they got trucked by a 7-5 team. I do like Ohio St's wins better though.That is exactly what I thought would put Ohio State in.
IOhio State didn't get in for the same reason Penn State didn't last year. They lost a game by 30+.I agree. If Ohio St loses a close game they get in, IMO.
If they had lost to Iowa by 1 or 2 points on a last second FG, they are in.
Won't matter because Oklahoma is winning it all. Baker Mayfield is playing some of the best QB we've ever seen. His efficieny numbers and QBR is through the damn roof.
IOhio State didn't get in for the same reason Penn State didn't last year. They lost a game by 30+.Agree with this.
If they had lost to Iowa by 1 or 2 points on a last second FG, they are in.
Won't matter because Oklahoma is winning it all. Baker Mayfield is playing some of the best QB we've ever seen. His efficieny numbers and QBR is through the damn roof.
So, three teams from three states in the Deep South, and Oklahoma, not really a media center.I disagree. Bama is a helmet school with a national following. Same goes for Oklahoma.
This worry about who may watch is clearly not a factor.
I disagree. Bama is a helmet school with a national following. Same goes for Oklahoma.And the fault of losing terribly to a bad team.
I think OSU is paying for the B1G goose eggs the past two years too.
IOhio State didn't get in for the same reason Penn State didn't last year. They lost a game by 30+.I agree. That 31-point loss to Iowa is the killer.
If they had lost to Iowa by 1 or 2 points on a last second FG, they are in.
Won't matter because Oklahoma is winning it all. Baker Mayfield is playing some of the best QB we've ever seen. His efficieny numbers and QBR is through the damn roof.
Wait. And Alabama, not Georgia, got the Sugar Bowl?Clemson got the Sugar Bowl.
there should be little doubt that Bama is at least one of the best four teams in the nation. but... they didn't perform when they most needed to- and should have lost their position because of that one game.While I completely agree with Bama getting in, your take that they would kill OSU is hilarious, given that's what they all said last time they played.
however, they would destroy tOSU, and anyone else from the B10... PSU would stand the greatest chance against Bama, and they don't have an argument to play... Clemson is worthy, regardless of their terribly foul loss, and OU is playing as good as any of the other three.honestly, once folks get over their redasses, this is going to be the best playoff so far.... there isn't a team there that clearly stands out from the others.
- Georgia is going to be hard to stop. their backfield is the best in the nation. their starting 11 on D is the best starting 11 in the nation. they're likely the team to beat by my reckoning.
- Clemson plays to whatever level they are required to play to... they lost to 'cuse, yeah- but it wasn't the rupture tOSU endured to both OU AND Iowa. Their D is STOUT, and they have likely the best starting lines in the nation.
- OU is playing as well as anyone on O, and have proven it's not a 'conference' thing by lighting up both TCU (x2) and tOSU's nationally ranked D's. Their D is serviceable and enough to keep them in the game with the other three.
- Bama may not have the best starting lines, nor the best starting O or D in the nation, but they are better than anyone below the top 6. but to state the obvious, you could rotate three players on either side of the ball and they'd still have a better starting O or D than anyone but the top six... attrition wins. they'll be fresh when the games begin, and.... they'll be favored throughout the playoffs.
Alabama struggled to defend Auburn and Miss St. No clue why anyone would think they would destroy OSU.because both those teams picked on bama's weakness (at the time) which was LB corps.. they'll be healthy by NYD, and the team they were for the season prior to those two games...
because both those teams picked on bama's weakness (at the time) which was LB corps.. they'll be healthy by NYD, and the team they were for the season prior to those two games...Yeah they just couldn't compete against the only strong team they played :57:
and.... they didn't lose to iowa by 40points. :)
While I completely agree with Bama getting in, your take that they would kill OSU is hilarious, given that's what they all said last time they played.The first part I agree with.
Bama struggles to run against good defensive lines, much like Wisconsin did last night.
Is JH a good enough passer to beat great defenses? So far, the evidence is no.
@Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) and @MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572)For OSU? Buckeyes far superior to any offense Bama has played, and far from their best this year. Seems likely a repeat of 2014 if they played this year. OSU does make mistakes and let other teams hang around though, which would be Bama's best shot.
tOSU struggles with teams capable of RPO (Gawd i HATE typing/saying that)... Bama can run, they can pass, and they can option... the bama Oline against tOSU D line is a push at best- and the quality of the Bama backfield is deeper than Wiscy's. by the third or early fourth, it would be a three possession lead.
@Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) and @MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572)Sure. I am sure you believed that last time they played, where Bama was a huge favorite and the game was in their backyard lol.
tOSU struggles with teams capable of RPO (Gawd i HATE typing/saying that)... Bama can run, they can pass, and they can option... the bama Oline against tOSU D line is a push at best- and the quality of the Bama backfield is deeper than Wiscy's. by the third or early fourth, it would be a three possession lead.
there you go
For all the talk, the committee clearly still looks at just how many losses you have. Alabama doesn't have anything resembling a good win. Hell, MSU has better wins than Bama does.
how can you be so sure?
however, they would destroy tOSU, and anyone else from the B10... PSU would stand the greatest chance against Bama, and they don't have an argument to play...
Alabama scheduled a name program this year.the scheduling is the issue
The scheduling was not the issue.
and... it WAS 'backdoor'... they lost when it was most important for them to win (which would have diminished the next game and THAT would be when it was most important), but.... lose they did, and because they didn't seal their CC.Facts say Ohio State has proven capable of beating a team that finished in the top 15 and the top ten.
i'm torn over the entire thing- i think they got it right from the perspective 'four best teams' (caveat: body of work; NOT right now).... but i also subscribe that ONLY CC's should be considered, else move the playoff to six or eight teams. I like eight.. that's 5 CC's and 3 at large- which could include a G5 team like UCF to be an offering for the overall #1 (hopefully deserving)...
I believe Bama handles tOSU in a hypothetical game... my opinion.. doesn't matter because it isn't going to happen- and there is no sense getting heated about something that's not possible...
or... you guys can take it to twitter... that seems to work... :)
however, they would destroy tOSU, and anyone else from the B10... PSU would stand the greatest chance against Bama, and they don't have an argument to play... Clemson is worthy, regardless of their terribly foul loss, and OU is playing as good as any of the other three.I don't know about Bama destroying tOSU, but I'm pretty sure that Clemson would. I think Bama and tOSU would be a good game. I would have loved to seem both of them paired up in a bowl game.
UGA and OU have never played.Right. And, as RTF posted right after your post, it's going to be awesome to see them meeting for the first time in the Rose Bowl.
factual evidence says tOSU lost a game by 40 points, and wasn't even their only loss.Auburn was so hot they lost by 21 their next game
factual evidence demonstrates Bama lost to a surging Auburn team, that was playing red hot and capable of beating anyone in the land with a healthy backfield, but had to play arguably the best two teams in the nation three times this season.
you are the one finding solace there will be no means to prove these possibilities... not me.. unlike you, i don't have a dog in the fight.
This is the MICHIGAN beat writerLmao.
https://twitter.com/nickbaumgardner/status/937394118577156097
Lmao.he should have called King Barry
Saban is such a weasel.
I wish someone would call him out on his BS.
The MSU series was called off because Nick didn't want to play a return game in East Lansing.
he should have called King BarryWouldn't help, he won't play true road games. Wisconsin already played them in Jerry World a couple years ago. Hollis told him if he didn't want a home and home he could shove it and pay up back out of it
both programs wouldn't have to defend their weak schedules this season
Wouldn't help, he won't play true road games. Wisconsin already played them in Jerry World a couple years ago. Hollis told him if he didn't want a home and home he could shove it and pay up back out of itgood for Hollis.
And the fault of losing terribly to a bad team.It's that 9th conference game thing as opposed to, I dunno, maybe Mercer?
he should have called King BarrySaban wouldn't come to Madison either. Only "neutral" site games in the South work for them.
both programs wouldn't have to defend their weak schedules this season
sh!t = crapYeah. I guess Drewbie Doo has started to put these things in. Probably my own shit fault.
nice work
EFF, i curse worse than any of you crap heads... just thought i'd toy with the setting, and maybe plant an easter egg or two for those not expecting to stumble across them.Sneaky bastage.
If the Big Ten is serious about the CFP, the path is clear...Preach it. No team should benefit from not playing. If the committee thought Auburn was unequivocally better than Bama and Georgia after stomping them both, and thought Wisconsin was better than Bama, how do you make Wisconisn and Auburn take the risk of that 13th game, and then reward the team that didn't have to?
1.) Move back to 8 conference games
2.) No more road OOC games
3.) Bring back FCS opponents.
For all the talk, the committee clearly still looks at just how many losses you have. Alabama doesn't have anything resembling a good win. Hell, MSU has better wins than
does.
Bingo, although it unfortunately hurts the fans. But the committee needs to quit touting scheduling as its BS.
I have no issue with OSU being out, they were up and down, got housed by an average Iowa team, they were a very good team, but not great team.
But, if you are going to let Bama in this year how did 2015 Ohio state get left out with very similar details. That team was hands down better than this Alabama team, it lost 1 game in a rain storm on a last second field goal.
Last years penn st team should have gotten in over Washington as well.
Preach it. No team should benefit from not playing. If the committee thought Auburn was unequivocally better than Bama and Georgia after stomping them both, and thought Wisconsin was better than Bama, how do you make Wisconisn and Auburn take the risk of that 13th game, and then reward the team that didn't have to?CCG's are high risk/high reward games. I can't disagree with anything you said but if the CCG's are going to be played then the results have to be taken into account. And yeah, sometimes just sitting at home and watching other teams play themselves out is a benefit.
It would be different if Bama was already in the top 4 like OSU was last year and got into the top 4 with a big win, but they lost their ass in the last game, were out of the top 4, and got rewarded for it. It makes no sense..
a committee of smart folks obviously isn't neededAny group of fancy-pants people is going to yield head-scratchers. The poll voters were intellectually lazy and so, too, is the committee. Shrug.
anyone of us could total up the numbers in the loss column at the end of the year
and then toss out the Badgers for not being a helmet
Nick Saban just said Alabama had to play Mercer because it couldn't find a game with anyone else.On. The. Next. To. Last. Weekend. Of. The. Season.
Coach, with all due respect: You are full of crap!!!
On. The. Next. To. Last. Weekend. Of. The. Season.Yeah, but the response to that is play your 4 OOC games at the beginning of the season and you will have more teams available to play.
There is a reason Bama continues to schedule FCS schools on the weekend in question. I didn't research it this year because I'm sure the results would have been similar. But, FWIW, in 2016 on the weekend in question, 100 of the other 127 FBS schools were playing conference games and were unavailable even if they were willing to play Bama. They weren't! Thirteen of the remaining 27 were SEC teams and were unavailable even if they had been willing to play an OOC game against Bama. They weren't! The 14 remaining FBS schools all have ADs with more than half a brain who would consider Tuscaloosa, Alabama as the last place on Earth where they would have their football team playing on the next to last weekend of the football season. Might need two wins to become Bowl eligible!
It's that 9th conference game thing as opposed to, I dunno, maybe Mercer?Bama (not just saban) doesn’t lose that bad to bad teams. We haven’t lost by 30+ to an unranked team since 1916 or something. Haven’t lost to Ann unranked team at all since 2007.
Yeah, but the response to that is play your 4 OOC games at the beginning of the season and you will have more teams available to play.Sec sets schedule and leaves 2 open dates in mid and late season. It’s either mid-late oct (heart of conf games) or 2nd to last weekend.
Sec sets schedule and leaves 2 open dates in mid and late season. It’s either mid-late oct (heart of conf games) or 2nd to last weekend.Yeah, I get it but the perception is that it looks like the SEC does that when the other P5 conferences are into conference play so they can:
Yeah, I get it but the perception is that it looks like the SEC does that when the other P5 conferences are into conference play so they can:But that’s not Bama fault sec sets it like that.
1. Play terrible OOC teams
2. Then say no one else was available.
And I'm with you, I don't think Bama/Saban is scared to play anyone but they are strategic about it too. It's not an "anytime, anyplace" mentality.
Sec sets schedule and leaves 2 open dates in mid and late season. It’s either mid-late oct (heart of conf games) or 2nd to last weekend.Don't the member institutions of the SEC run the SEC? One would think that if the schools wanted to play their 4 (four) OOC games at the start of the season, the SEC would build its schedule to accommodate that.
Bama (not just saban) doesn’t lose that bad to bad teams. We haven’t lost by 30+ to an unranked team since 1916 or something. Haven’t lost to Ann unranked team at all since 2007.Sorry, that's not going to fly here. This has nothing to do with OSU- hell, rank then 10th...nobody cares because they got creamed.
If osu is just close in that game they’re in. Or if Bama loses to anyone like that they’re out.
And all you guys acting like saban/Bama are scared to play good teams are laughable. Need to step back and calm down. FSU crap the bed this season but there is no way in hell Bama/saban knew that would happen. The neutral site games, while tiresome as a fan, are financially huge for Bama. That is why they do it. Not from fear lol. Most of you guys are brilliant but sometimes you guys lose your minds on this stuff.
Yeah, but the response to that is play your 4 OOC games at the beginning of the season and you will have more teams available to play.If Auburn would do that also, then Bama would. I would prefer the SEC use that week for conference games and not leave it open for OOC. And I suspect Saban does also. Especially since he is the only coach in the conference in favor of a 9th conference game. Play the additional game on that weekend.
Last year I was in the camp of PSU to the playoff, they won head to head with OSU, and the B1G Championship, the committee came back with "body of work" and could support since they had several common opponents; this year the same "body of work" is just a beauty pageant. Whoever got skipped has a legitimate complaint, and who got picked should feel fortunate.
I really hope that 'bama gets embarrassed this year, not because I'm against them, but I want to nip the non-conference champ in the playoff selection. I really want OSU to pound USC, not just because I'm a fan, but I want conference champs to be in the playoff, unless there is a clear cut better team, and I don't think anyone can really say clear cut 'bama is better than OSU.
Sorry, that's not going to fly here. This has nothing to do with OSU- hell, rank then 10th...nobody cares because they got creamed.the conversation i was having was directly related to why osu didn't get in and bama did. so it therefore has everything to do with osu.
I believe that Clemson will pound Alabama, since they actually deserve their number one ranking. Alabama got in on name recognition, the desire by ESPN to have a Clemson-Alabama rematch and past achievements (none of that is supposed to count). I hope that TV ratings on the West Coast and in The Midwest will predictably suffer.Clemson and Alabama each lost one game. Clemson to 4-8 Syracuse and Bama to 10-3 Auburn. Therefore Clemson deserves their number one ranking and Bama got in on name recognition!? :smiley_confused1:
I don’t like the precedent of two teams from one conference, for the first time. If it was based on something concrete, rather than subjective assumptions, Then I could accept the decision by the committee more easily. We have 5 power conferences with Championship games that produce Conference Champions. Leaving out one conference each year is unavoidable, leaving out two by choice, in order to favor an individual team or conference (non champion), based on scant evidence, seems inherently wrong.
This is a list of losses by CFP teams, by point margin, to unranked teams during the season in which they were in the CFP.I'd genuinely be interested to see top 25 wins w/win margin for each team in the CFP as well. Just if you have some time and nothing to do :)
2015 Michigan State - 1 point
2016 Clemson - 1 point
2016 Ohio State - 3 points
2017 Clemson - 3 points
2014 Oregon - 7 points
2015 Oklahoma - 7 points
2017 Oklahoma - 7 points
2014 Ohio State - 14 points
Did you really want to add
2017 Ohio State - 31 points
to this list?
Clemson and Alabama each lost one game. Clemson to 4-8 Syracuse and Bama to 10-3 Auburn. Therefore Clemson deserves their number one ranking and Bama got in on name recognition"best coaches" is never quantifiable immediately. too many moving parts. but yes, dabo is already strongly in the discussion for top current coach, imo. regardless of cfp outcome.
if you're going by who ya beat, then yeah. Clemson beat 3 teams in the top 15 in September alone, won their conference title with a 38-3 drubbing of a top 10 team. Clemson also beat the team that beat you. so yeah, I'd say Clemson deserved the #1 spot.
Dabo pulls this one out, and I think there might be a new pecking order in top coaches in the country. not greatest of all time talk, but current top coach would be Dabo in my opinion.
if OSU in 2015 didn't get in, hard for me to see why 2017 Alabama should've gotten in.Plus their lone loss was a close loss on the final play of the game, to a CFP participant. Alabama played one top 15 opponent and got trucked.
that OSU 2015 team was freaking loaded. Who is the best RB in the NFL? Zeke Elliot. Who is one of the top 5 DE's and maybe the best pass rusher in the NFL? Joey Bosa. They were experienced vets on that team.
if OSU in 2015 didn't get in, hard for me to see why 2017 Alabama should've gotten in.but who was that 15 osu going against? certainly not a 2 loss (1 blowout to unranked team) conf champ team. can't compare teams from different years without also considering the circumstances. if the '15 osu team was going vs this years bama, no brainer osu gets in.
that OSU 2015 team was freaking loaded. Who is the best RB in the NFL? Zeke Elliot. Who is one of the top 5 DE's and maybe the best pass rusher in the NFL? Joey Bosa. They were experienced vets on that team.
but who was that 15 osu going against? certainly not a 2 loss (1 blowout to unranked team) conf champ team. can't compare teams from different years without also considering the circumstances. if the '15 osu team was going vs this years bama, no brainer osu gets in.This. Obviously 2015 OSU has a stronger case than 2017 Alabama, but they were being compared to nothing but undefeated and one loss conference champs. If that's what we had this year, Alabama would be out.
if this years osu team has 1 loss, or even not blowout loss, they're in.
Georgia for example with a 9 game conference slate would have either to drop Georgia Tech or not play another P5 school that year (they usually play Tech and one more) OR play 11 P5 schools, which is unlikely (though they did it one year).USC did it this year. The only non P5 school they played was in the NY6 last year.
USCe and UK and UF are in the same boat.
I like this idea as well. 9-conference game schedules should be mandated. Big 12 has 10 teams and they play a round robin so they are fine. B1G and Pac both went to 9 conference game schedules. ACC and SEC are still holding out. Gee, I wonder why.fwiw, sec has mandate to play 9 p5 schools. i think it's worded different, something like must play 1 p5 ooc, but with the conf slate makes 9 so no difference. EDIT: i misread the first part, thought it said 9 p5 games not 9 conf games. fwiw, i agree sec should do 9 conf games.
I like the idea of going to 6 team play-off, with the 5 conference champs getting auto-bids. That last spot will be a wild-card. Take the top two teams that finished just outside and make them play each other for that 6th spot in the playoff. You get rewarded for winning your conference with a spot in the playoff and a first round bye. Winning your conference should matter. Right now the CFP is saying it doesn't. If you were the next two highest rated teams but were "oh so close" you get a chance to play your way in. I don't see why anybody should have a problem with that.
i don't like the idea of conf champs getting auto bids cause we will end up with a 3-4 loss team eventually, especially if we're including all p5 confs.People seem ok with a 7 loss super bowl champ. There should be a defined way in, not arbitrary selection.
People seem ok with a 7 loss super bowl champ. There should be a defined way in, not arbitrary selection.i wasn't. that was a ridiculous year, imo.
but who was that 15 osu going against? certainly not a 2 loss (1 blowout to unranked team) conf champ team. can't compare teams from different years without also considering the circumstances. if the '15 osu team was going vs this years bama, no brainer osu gets in.That 2015 buckeye team lost a game on a last-second play in a rainstorm but followed that up with an impressive Road victory by kicking the hell out of a 10 win Michigan team.
if this years osu team has 1 loss, or even not blowout loss, they're in.
USC did it this year. The only non P5 school they played was in the NY6 last year.Texas has played 11 P5 schools every year since 2012 (I'm counting Notre Dame and BYU as P5 schools here).
People seem ok with a 7 loss super bowl champ. There should be a defined way in, not arbitrary selection.This.
That 2015 buckeye team lost a game on a last-second play in a rainstorm but followed that up with an impressive Road victory by kicking the hell out of a 10 win Michigan team.i don't know what changed and agree with what you're saying. i said after those rankings were released i thought it'd be osu based on the 'minimal separation' from 5-8 from the committee spokesman, bringing sos/conf champs/etc into play, which osu would be in better position than bama is. and i don't know what changed (more likely they were bs-ing for ratings, imo).
They did not get beat by their arrival soundly and have that be the last game they played - like Bama.
So if Wisconsin was above Bama before this weekend and so was Auburn, and according to Hocutt separation between number five and number eight was minimal, what happened over the weekend to make Alabama "unequivocally better" than Ohio State? Was it the team that beat Bama getting blasted? Was it Wisconsin getting beat by Ohio State? What suddenly made Alabama on equivocally better than Ohio State?
i don't know what changed and agree with what you're saying. i said after those rankings were released i thought it'd be osu based on the 'minimal separation' from 5-8 from the committee spokesman, bringing sos/conf champs/etc into play, which osu would be in better position than bama is. and i don't know what changed (more likely they were bs-ing for ratings, imo).I agree with this entirely. Part of the nature of things is that you compete in a particular year. I've always said, for example, that Ohio State and Michigan both had possibly their best ever teams in 1973. Neither won an NC though because they tied each other. Ohio State got the Rose Bowl (on a vote of conference AD's) and smoked USC in the Rose Bowl. They didn't finish #1 because they had a "blemish" in the tie with Michigan. 1973 Ohio State would easily have won the NC in 1972 or 1974 (as would 1973 Michigan) but you don't get to do that.
as for the '15 osu vs '17 bama, again the competition to get in the cfp in '15 was much greater than in '17. if '15 osu replaced '17 osu, it's a no brainer and osu is in easily. you can't just compare 15 osu to 17 bama. you have to compare the entire circumstances, which aren't the same 15 osu had much better teams to compete with to get in cfp than the 17 counterparts.
So, three teams from three states in the Deep South, and Oklahoma, not really a media center.This.
This worry about who may watch is clearly not a factor.
That is exactly what I thought would put Ohio State in.Up until this year the Committee has been MUCH more interested in who you beat and losses have been a lesser issue. Bama got in despite lacking quality wins. They have changed their tune.
Up until this year the Committee has been MUCH more interested in who you beat and losses have been a lesser issue. Bama got in despite lacking quality wins. They have changed their tune.It'll change back when it's convenient to change it back...
If the Big Ten is serious about the CFP, the path is clear...My objection to the Bama selection is exactly this. The message it sends it that scheduling for a strong SoS is a fool's errand because the primary consideration by the committee is:
1.) Move back to 8 conference games
2.) No more road OOC games
3.) Bring back FCS opponents.
For all the talk, the committee clearly still looks at just how many losses you have. Alabama doesn't have anything resembling a good win. Hell, MSU has better wins than Bama does.
It'll change back when it's convenient to change it back...because the primary consideration by the committee is:
Folks criticize Bama's scheduling, but scheduling FSU was a stout move.I've said this repeatedly in this thread and I stand by it:
I disagree with their neutral site thing and also think they should play 10 P5 teams, but scheduling FSU was not a problem in my mind. Whether they played Mercer or Ga Southern wouldn't have mattered. They could have scheduled Duke or UNC and it wouldn't have mattered either, but it would look better.
"How did the third best B1G team make the playoffs? By staying home and doing nothing, while other teams worked hard and won Championships. Ohio State didn’t win a division title, a conference title...."Changed it around so you could time warp back a year ago today.
because the primary consideration by the committee is:It's simple: 1) Don't lose 2 games. 2) Don't lose one of them being run off the field.
Number of Losses.
Maybe the committee simply decided that the wrath of the Ohio State fan base wouldn't be as bad as the wrath from the Bama fan base.Iowa - the way they lost,close game there may be an argument
I mean, why not that reason?
I've said this repeatedly in this thread and I stand by it:that's fine and i don't disagree.
This isn't 4 year old T-ball. You should not be rewarded for effort.
I agree that SCHEDULING FSU was a stout move. However, it did NOT turn out to be a game against a quality opponent. The same is true for Wisconsin with BYU.
- Wisconsin scheduled a BYU team that has been decent almost every year recently.
- Bama scheduled an FSU team that was expected to be a playoff contender.
Neither Bama nor Wisconsin should be judged based on what they tried to accomplish. They should be judged based on what actually happened. What actually happened was that Bama played a mediocre (6-6) FSU team and Wisconsin played a terrible (4-9) BYU team.
In 2018 Ohio State's OOC is OrSU, TCU, and Tulane. If TCU sucks, Ohio State should not get "credit" for effort for scheduling a TCU team that has been pretty good. Also, Ohio State should not get "credit" for the fact that when they scheduled OrSU, the Beavers were pretty good.
that's fine and i don't disagree.And I agree with you. Bama did try to schedule a strong OOC opponent.
but what it does mean is anyone saying bama is scared or tried to get an edge by not playing anyone tough is full of it. bama went out and scheduled what it thought was a really tough opponent. it didn't turn out that way, but it's not a result of trying to find easy opponents.
Changed it around so you could time warp back a year ago today.Last year PSU against ranked (final CFP) opponents:
It's kinda humorous to me to to hear all of this a year later, now that the shoe's on the other foot. OSU's resume yesterday essentially mirrored Penn State's last year and frankly was weaker in my opinion (at least PSU got whitewashed by by a Top 15 team, not a 5 loss team). Wasn't much crying/whining for the Nits as I recall.
Suck it up, this is how it goes. PSU has been screwed out of 5 MNC's that I can count, and that doesn't include the right to try and play for one last year. This is CFB, these are the politics.
Last year PSU against ranked (final CFP) opponents:Add to that, Ohio State last year had a play in game. Number 2 versus# 3, on the last day of the regular season. They won and went into the final championship weekend ALREADY in the top 4. Bama got manhandled on their last week end and went into the final weekend OUT of the top 4. No comparison.Last year Ohio State:
- #3 Ohio State: Won by 3, home
- #6 Michigan: Lost by 39, road
- #8 Wisconsin: Won by 7, neutral
- #23 Pitt: Lost by 3, road
Bama this year:
- #5 Penn State: Lost by 3, road
- #6 Michigan: Won in 2OT, home
- #7 Oklahoma: Won by 21, road
- #8 Wisconsin: Won in OT, road
- #7 Auburn: Lost by 12, road
- #17 LSU: Won by 14, home.
- #23 MissSt: Won by 7, home
Penn State has a better argument this year than they did last year. Last year Penn State's best road win was . . . Indiana?
Ohio State had a ridiculously tough schedule last year that included three road games against top-10 opponents.
Bama this year doesn't have a signature win to rival either Ohio State or Penn State in either 2016 or 2017.
Last year PSU against ranked (final CFP) opponents:It doesn't affect your argument much, but Bama played Mississippi State in Starkville.Last year Ohio State:
- #3 Ohio State: Won by 3, home
- #6 Michigan: Lost by 39, road
- #8 Wisconsin: Won by 7, neutral
- #23 Pitt: Lost by 3, road
Bama this year:
- #5 Penn State: Lost by 3, road
- #6 Michigan: Won in 2OT, home
- #7 Oklahoma: Won by 21, road
- #8 Wisconsin: Won in OT, road
- #7 Auburn: Lost by 12, road
- #17 LSU: Won by 14, home.
- #23 MissSt: Won by 7, home
Penn State has a better argument this year than they did last year. Last year Penn State's best road win was . . . Indiana?
Ohio State had a ridiculously tough schedule last year that included three road games against top-10 opponents.
Bama this year doesn't have a signature win to rival either Ohio State or Penn State in either 2016 or 2017.
we're focusing a lot on Ohio State obviously, but lets not forget. if USC plays Akron instead of ND, then USC is in the playoff as well.This is exactly what is wrong with what the committee did. Every AD in the nation now knows two things:
In the committee's defense I don't think they were just counting losses in regards to Bama/OhioSt. I really believe it was the way Ohio St lost that kept them out. I do my own rankings every year because I like to get an idea of just how difficult it is to do what the CFP does every year.They did the same in putting Washington in last year though too. They aren't putting a 2 loss team in as long as there are at least 4 undefeated or 1 loss teams.
I usually lean more on resume and pay more attention to who you beat than who you lose to but the Iowa loss was just so unusual it was hard to gloss over it. If Ohio St loses on a FG at the gun I'd probably have been more forgiving. I have to think maybe the CFP would have too.
This is exactly what is wrong with what the committee did. Every AD in the nation now knows two things:Interesting in this scenerio, the choices would have been
- If USC had hosted Akron instead of travelling to Notre Dame, the Trojans would be a 12-1 P5 Champion in the CFP.
- If Ohio State had hosted Tulsa instead of playing Oklahoma, the Buckeyes would be a 12-1 P5 Champion in the CFP.
The committee sent a message loud and clear and that message is that SoS is merely a tiebreaker while number of losses is the #1 consideration.
Interesting in this scenerio, the choices would have beenEasy, SoS and Championships are effectively tiebreakers so the four P5 Champions with the best SoS. In this example, Bama and USC are out. Bana because they aren't a Champion and USC because they had the weakest (by far) CG opponent.
1. 12-1 Clemson (did not play S Car or Auburn)
2. 12-1 Georgia (did not play ND or GT)
3. 12-1 Oklahoma (did not play ohio st)
4. 12-1 USC (did not play ND or Tex)
5. 12-1 Ohio St (did not play Okie)
6. 11-1 Bama (did not play FSU)
Who does the committe pick?
Changed it around so you could time warp back a year ago today.hmm... I do recall lots of nittany tears last year. I think they were justified. Last year the committee claimed quality wins, better wins vs. same competition, and 1 loss; trumped head to head and conference title.
It's kinda humorous to me to to hear all of this a year later, now that the shoe's on the other foot. OSU's resume yesterday essentially mirrored Penn State's last year and frankly was weaker in my opinion (at least PSU got whitewashed by by a Top 15 team, not a 5 loss team). Wasn't much crying/whining for the Nits as I recall.
Suck it up, this is how it goes. PSU has been screwed out of 5 MNC's that I can count, and that doesn't include the right to try and play for one last year. This is CFB, these are the politics.
They did the same in putting Washington in last year though too. They aren't putting a 2 loss team in as long as there are at least 4 undefeated or 1 loss teams.Washington had 3 ranked wins compared to Penn St's two plus one less loss. That wasn't just counting losses.
hmm... I do recall lots of nittany tears last year. I think they were justified. Last year the committee claimed quality wins, better wins vs. same competition, and 1 loss; trumped head to head and conference title.I agree.
This year they are claiming weaker schedule, only 1 loss trumps tougher schedule and conference title.
Both cases PSU last year, and OSU this year they had an embarrassing loss. I think the committee is saying what Saban said, championship caliber teams don't get embarrassed when they stub their toe.
Interesting in this scenerio, the choices would have beenIf Clemson didn't play Auburn, then Auburn didn't play Clemson, which means...
1. 12-1 Clemson (did not play S Car or Auburn)
2. 12-1 Georgia (did not play ND or GT)
3. 12-1 Oklahoma (did not play ohio st)
4. 12-1 USC (did not play ND or Tex)
5. 12-1 Ohio St (did not play Okie)
6. 11-1 Bama (did not play FSU)
Who does the committe pick?
Given the results of last Saturday's games I like the four teams in the playoffs. Not surprised the Big Ten was locked out. The Big Ten has always been kind of a circular firing squad. Adding a conference championship game has not helped. I would prefer to see the Big Ten go to 10 conference games and drop the championship game. And adding more cupcakes or FCS teams to the schedule is not the answer.Depends on the question. If the question is, what's the best way to maximize the B1G's chances at making the CFP every year, then the answer is drop to 8 conference games, add more FCS and gimmes, don't jeopardize your top teams with home-and-homes against good competition but rather schedule them as 1-off neutral site games in stadiums that are likely to be friendly toward you, and carefully tailor the x-division opponents to protect the best teams in each division from one another.
The Pirate on the playoff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_nuMEtwUW4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_nuMEtwUW4)PURE GOLD!!!!! LMAO. MADE MY DAY.
I love that guy man.
From Tom Fornelli at CBSec Sports. I found this mildly amusing. And truth.HAHA. I actually posted a link to that way earlier in this thread- but since I didn't embed it- I doubt anyone read it.
*********************************************************
"Alabama was clearly the No. 4 ranked team as a non-champion," said Hocutt when asked why the committee went with the Tide over the Buckeyes.
Clearly?! Really?!
Let's go back to last week -- five days, in fact -- when the committee released its penultimate CFP Rankings on Tuesday night. In those rankings, Alabama was No. 5 and Ohio State was No. 8. Here's what Hocutt said while answering questions about the debate between Alabama and Ohio State less than a week ago.
"Reflecting on the discussions over the last two days," said Hocutt, "obviously there's three spots that separate [Alabama and Ohio State] right there, but it's close separation from team No. 5, Alabama, [with] No. 6 Georgia, No. 7 Miami, No. 8 Ohio State. Those teams are close. Very little separation in the committee's eyes between teams five through eight."
So what happened to take us from having "very little separation" between Ohio State and Alabama to "Alabama was clearly the No. 4-ranked team?"
Was it Ohio State winning a Big Ten title against No. 4 Wisconsin (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/WISC/wisconsin-badgers) that proved Alabama was clearly better than it? Was it Auburn (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/AUBURN/auburn-tigers), the team that beat Alabama, losing to Georgia that proved Alabama was better?
Or is the committee just talking out its you-know-what to explain its rankings on a weekly basis?
Only one of those three questions has an obvious answer.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/what-we-learned-dont-listen-to-the-cfp-heres-why-alabama-is-in-over-ohio-state/
hmm... I do recall lots of nittany tears last year. I think they were justified. Last year the committee claimed quality wins, better wins vs. same competition, and 1 loss; trumped head to head and conference title.I actually for one had no issue with a 1-loss OSU team making the playoff last year despite the circumstances. I obviously wanted Penn State in, but I understood why they weren't as well.
This year they are claiming weaker schedule, only 1 loss trumps tougher schedule and conference title.
Both cases PSU last year, and OSU this year they had an embarrassing loss. I think the committee is saying what Saban said, championship caliber teams don't get embarrassed when they stub their toe.
I think if tOSU won by 3+ scores, they'd have gotten in. I bet a big part of Bama getting in is that the committee thinks the Tide would beat Wisconsin by more than 6 points....I also think that had Ohio State lost on a last second field goal at Kinnick they would have gotten in too.
HAHA. I actually posted a link to that way earlier in this thread- but since I didn't embed it- I doubt anyone read it.I actually read it when you posted it and it really highlights something that has been bothering me.
Great stuff.
I actually for one had no issue with a 1-loss OSU team making the playoff last year despite the circumstances. I obviously wanted Penn State in, but I understood why they weren't as well.FWIW: I do not think that Ohio State getting snubbed is a "massive injustice". I look at it a lot like you described your view of PSU getting snubbed last year. I want my team in and it sucks but I can see why. I've said that if I were on the committee I would see this (tOSU/Bama) as a REALLY tough call. I think it was MUCH closer than tOSU/TCU/Baylor a few years ago because Ohio State had an obviously better SoS and that HUGE win over Wisconsin that TCU/Baylor couldn't match so that seemed pretty obvious to me.
I said it in another post, I'll say it again - Don't. Lose. Bad. The committee two years in a row has obviously made this a point.
And Ohio State had a really bad loss at Iowa this year, as did Penn State did to Michigan last year (albeit, a MUCH better Michigan team last year than Iowa was this year). It wasn't the Pitt loss that did PSU in last year; it was being blown out by Michigan. Am I the only one who remembers the massive uproar when 2001 Nebraska made the MNC title game that year after being whitewashed by Colorado?
My point is (and not directed at you Typhon, just in general) you can't take the result from last year with OSU getting in over Penn State and flip it to not getting in this year over Bama regardless of how many 'good' wins you think you have and the other doesn't. OSU fans in general seem to be failing to grasp that, like they are enduring some massive injustice.
I also think that had Ohio State lost on a last second field goal at Kinnick they would have gotten in too.That is an interesting hypothetical but we are not going to know until somebody has two losses with neither being blowouts.
It's kind of interesting then, if margin of victory (or defeat) is so valued by the committee, and way back when the computers were part of the BCS, they required MOV to be removed from their formulas.....I do not want MoV to be an unlimited factor. I just don't think that beating the crap out of horrible teams by 50+ proves anything.
We're a fickle species.
FWIW: I do not think that Ohio State getting snubbed is a "massive injustice". I look at it a lot like you described your view of PSU getting snubbed last year. I want my team in and it sucks but I can see why. I've said that if I were on the committee I would see this (tOSU/Bama) as a REALLY tough call. I think it was MUCH closer than tOSU/TCU/Baylor a few years ago because Ohio State had an obviously better SoS and that HUGE win over Wisconsin that TCU/Baylor couldn't match so that seemed pretty obvious to me.Medina, you typically are an outlier to the OSU rhetoric (at least, the very vocal minority of OSU fans; same can be said for Nittany Lions as well, I know).
I do not think that you can say that the blowout loss to Michigan and not the Pitt loss did in PSU last year. I think it was both. You might be right, but I think a 12-1 PSU last year with a close win over Pitt and the same blowout loss to Michigan is in.
most of us are
We're a fickle species.
Medina, you typically are an outlier to the OSU rhetoric (at least, the very vocal minority of OSU fans; same can be said for Nittany Lions as well, I know).That would be a really interesting question. I honestly believe that PSU is better this year than last. Last year the win over tOSU was at home, at night, and in a close game as opposed to losing this year on the road in a close game. That is pretty close. PSU's two losses last year were, IMHO, both bad:
That said, I agree with your second statement that 1) it was a tough call and 2) was way closer than the 2015 debate.
I'll agree that a 12-1 PSU team is in last year no doubt, but I also think a 11-2 PSU team with a much closer loss to Michigan also gets in over OSU. Just one man's opinion in that regard.
I also think that had PSU finished off the OSU win AND wont the B1G, they too were in over Bama this year even with the loss to MSU. That's a harder pill for me to swallow than last year even, b/c a road win at the Shoe was in grasp and Barrett played the best quarter he'll ever play in football while PSU's coaches clammed up. What coulda been.....(and again, no guarantees they beat Wisky either, but still....).
What would have been incredible turmoil is PSU goes 11-1 with their only loss on the road late to OSU.....who would've gotten in THEN?
I'll agree that a 12-1 PSU team is in last year no doubt, but I also think a 11-2 PSU team with a much closer loss to Michigan also gets in over OSU. Just one man's opinion in that regard.This really is the main remaining question. The two two-loss champions that got left out both had at least one REALLY bad loss.
Since they didn't allow anyone outside of the old Confederacy to participate, perhaps the Union should hold a playoff of its own.If they ever go to 8 teams, you should do north bracket and south bracket then the winners just meet in DC.
Since they didn't allow anyone outside of the old Confederacy to participate, perhaps the Union should hold a playoff of its own.Not true. Oklahoma was NOT in the Confederacy. It didn't become a state until 1900.
Not true. Oklahoma was NOT in the Confederacy. It didn't become a state until 1900.You know this from driving through the state, and not from the (at least) two years of American History you took in junior high and high school? ;)
I know this because I was driving through Oklahoma once and noticed a GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) cemetery. I thought that was odd because you most definitely would NEVER see that in neighboring Texas. A lot of Oklahoma's early settlers were Union veterans from the Civil War.
Not true. Oklahoma was NOT in the Confederacy. It didn't become a state until 1900.It may not have been a State, but it was in the CSA.
I know this because I was driving through Oklahoma once and noticed a GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) cemetery. I thought that was odd because you most definitely would NEVER see that in neighboring Texas. A lot of Oklahoma's early settlers were Union veterans from the Civil War.
Well.....lessee......pre-playoffs, we had champions from:California was a Union State.
confederacy for 9 years
CA (no side)
1 confederacy
1 union
1 confederacy
OK (no side)
2 confederacy
So that's 13 for the south, 1 for the north, and 2 johnny-come-latelies......so let's not poo-poo the playoff selections. Seems like more of the same, if anything a'tall.
This really is the main remaining question. The two two-loss champions that got left out both had at least one REALLY bad loss.Oh- PSU would probably have gotten in at 12-1- over WASHINGTON!!
You have said that you believe that it was the bad loss that kept them out. Fearless has said that they simply count up losses. I'm not sure.
Last year I thought (hoped) that the committee was rewarding SoS. Ohio State's last year was clearly better than PSU's with the OOC blowout road win over a P5 Champion along with a road win over UW, a road loss at PSU, etc.
This year made clear that it isn't simply SoS. Bama's SoS was not better than Ohio State's. That leaves two possibilities:
- They simply count up losses. Bama-17 and tOSU-16 got in because they had less losses.
- That bad losses are fatal. PSU-16 and tOSU-17 both had big losses and both got excluded.
It may not have been a State, but it was in the CSA.Perhaps the Civil War Sooner will appear and enlighten us on the true nature of Oklahoma's involvement in the Civil War. Pretty sure he'd know the details of it.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Map_of_CSA_4.png/550px-Map_of_CSA_4.png)
Perhaps the Civil War Sooner will appear and enlighten us on the true nature of Oklahoma's involvement in the Civil War. Pretty sure he'd know the details of it.Speak of the devil . . . .
Oh- PSU would probably have gotten in at 12-1- over WASHINGTON!!first, i won't pretend to know or understand what the committee was thinking when the said it was really close 1 week before ccgames and then not really all that close the week after. i would suggest it was simply a lie to garner ratings, cause saying 'it's the winners of seccg, acccg, ou and wisk if they win, bama if one loses' won't build suspense.
it cracks me up that people keep saying OSU got in over them. NO_ as the committee said 1000 times, the last spot was a debate between those two.
here is what your missing PSU- and are almost all of the talking heads and fans who are reacting:
last year, OSU had arguably THE BEST RESUME OUT THERE. It ended with what was openly referred to as a play in game on the last day of the regular season between two of the CFP top 4- a game OSU won. They went into the Championship game Weekend already SOLIDLY in the top 4. They were 3 if I recall.
The committee considered putting PSU- a 2 loss Champ, at 4 over a 1 loss champ with a less impressive schedule.
This year- Bama had no such resume. went into the last game against a good team and got beaten convincingly, and went into the championship weekend NOT IN THE TOP 4. They moved up by losing their last game soundly, and by not playing at all.
TWO THINGS THAT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE- a team losing last game and getting in, and a team not in top 4, not playing id jumping into top 4.
By the way- that's no great injustice to OSU. If Bama was ranked 4 going in- half this noise would go away.
But lie Typhonic- this is the first year you cant follow what they did and support it with facts, and it does not match what they said- or their rankings on the penultimate weekend.
They never thought Wisky was number 4 - which I also don't understand because they had the least LOSSES (hello- you said that was it right committee), and gave OSU no credit for winning.
anyway-- different perspective below...
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2017/12/89018/travelers-and-thieves (https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2017/12/89018/travelers-and-thieves)
Speak of the devil . . . .Thank you for this, CW. Fascinating stuff.
Oklahoma history is not really my subject, but Oklahoma was Indian Territory at the time. The only federal officials prior to the war were just there to oversee the various Plains Indian tribes that had been relocated there, other than the "Five Civilized Tribes" relocated from what is now called the Southeastern U.S.
The Confederacy gained the loyalty of most of the tribes by granting them representation in the C.S. Congress, and because the Civilized Tribes were slaveholders, like their former white neighbors back in the South. The Cherokees were notably split. The more assimilated, more intermarried-with-whites faction, led by former chief John Ross (7/8 Scotch-Irish, IIRC) stuck with the Union. The less-assimilated, more pure-blood faction, led by principal chief Stand Watie, went with the Confederates. Stand Watie would go on to be the last Confederate general to surrender in 1865.
There were a fair number of small battles fought in Indian Territory. Several of them were inter-tribal Cherokee fights. Indian Territory was more or less secured for the Union with the Battle of Honey Springs, near modern-day Checotah, in July 1863, same month as Gettysburg. There is a re-enactment held there every year. Even though it was the biggest battle fought in the territory, it was still a small affair, with fewer than 10,000 total troops involved. The losing Confederates were the larger force. Both sides contained mostly black and Indian troops.
After the war, the Indians lost more of their land for having sided with the Confederates. The Cherokees got no break for having been split. The western part of Indian Territory was opened to white settlement with a series of land runs beginning in 1889 and ending in 1895. This part of the state was designated Oklahoma Territory, while the eastern part, where the 5 Civilized Tribes and Osages lived, remained Indian Territory. The two sections merged into the State of Oklahoma, the 46th state, in 1907.
No sweat, Badge. This "Civil War of College Football" is sort of an interesting distraction.I just want to add/clarify that both Nevada and obviously West Virginia became states during the War.
Territorial governments were creations of the U.S. government. They had no standing to announce secession. The most secessionist thing that could happen would be for them to be occupied by Confederate forces and a brand-new pro-Confederate "territorial government" installed. But that would be because of military conquest, not because the lawful territorial government chose to side with the Confederacy.
Maybe this map will provide additional clarification.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/US_Secession_map_1863_%28BlankMap_derived%29.png/250px-US_Secession_map_1863_%28BlankMap_derived%29.png)
The legend won't post as an image, but what it says is:
US Secession map 1863.
The Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_(American_Civil_War)) vs. the Confederacy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America)
[dark blue] Union states
[light blue] Union territories prohibiting slavery
[yellow] Border union states permitting slavery
[tan] Union territories permitting slavery
[brown] Union territories permitting slavery (claimed by Confederacy)
We went to Nashville this past Spring and spent some time in Franklin. There was a lot to learn and see in Franklin.My great-great grandfather visited Franklin in 1864 as part of an all-expense-paid trip provided by President Lincoln and the Federal Government via the Grand Army of the Republic and the 97th Ohio Volunteer Infantry Regiment.
first, i won't pretend to know or understand what the committee was thinking when the said it was really close 1 week before ccgames and then not really all that close the week after. i would suggest it was simply a lie to garner ratings, cause saying 'it's the winners of seccg, acccg, ou and wisk if they win, bama if one loses' won't build suspense.I agree with this post. Most of those "never happened" things will happen. I don't have a major beef with the ultimate decision. I said myself that I thought it was a close call that could go either way.
based on what they said prior to ccgames, i said i suspected osu was in with a win. if what they said was true, then osu should have been in. but apparently it wasn't true and they though bama was simply clearly better. simply, they lied prior to the ccgame, imo.
i also don't disagree with the thought of how bama could possibly move up having not played. but to counter argue, teams move up and down all the time having not played due to results of those around them. that's how bama moved up. agree with that movement or not, matters not (and i won't argue with either sentiment), it's the simple truth of why/how.
having said that, i don't put much stock into "NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE" things. this cfp is in its infancy and every year there will be a 'never happened before'. with osu this year, there'd be at least 2 never happened before's with the 2 losses and a blow out loss. last year they had a big one with the non-champ thing (maybe paving the way for bama to oust them this year, in some form of irony). i said all along there would eventually be 2 from same conf, and we hit that this year as well. the only thing i'm not sure will eventually happen that is commonly discussed is a g5 team getting in. i think it's possible, and last year there was a chance had houston not crapped themselves. but unless it's expanded i won't say it will happen for sure. but everything else (2 loss team, team blown out, teams from same state, repeat champ, rematch from reg season, etc.) will eventually happen. many sooner than we likely think.
I agree with this post. Most of those "never happened" things will happen. I don't have a major beef with the ultimate decision. I said myself that I thought it was a close call that could go either way.i don't think they cared, tbh. what are we gonna do with that lie? complain for a few weeks? but if it was predetermined before the ccg then they lose money from viewership. maybe i'm missing something or to cynical, but that seems the easy answer to me.
My major beef is what you illustrated with your post. Their statement a week before the final rankings was obviously a lie and that just bothers me. If there truly was "very little separation" between Bama and Ohio State before the CCG's, then I think we can all agree that once Ohio State picked up a quality win and a conference championship they should have been ahead.
What really baffles me is that I just think it was incredibly stupid for the committee to create that situation. None of the CCG results were terribly shocking. How did they fail to foresee that their lie would be exposed a week later?
I just want to add/clarify that both Nevada and obviously West Virginia became states during the War.And Nevada was initially much smaller than it is today.
And Nevada was initially much smaller than it is today.Probably because there was not water. Not that this changed much. Different thread most likely.
Their statement a week before the final rankings was obviously a lie and that just bothers me.the only poll that matters is the final poll
the only poll that matters is the final pollTotally agree.
the first poll and the poll the week before the final poll have the same value - zero
I don't think of those polls as lies, I just think of them as hot air escaping - blah, blah, blah - to incite discussion and interest
and I just can't listen to Klatt for 18 minutesmaybe not, but he sounded like the inner monologue I had running in my head about what occurred.
and I just can't listen to Klatt for 18 minutesYou just hate him because he's a Buff.
You just hate him because he's a Buff.I think that's justified