I'm afraid if LSU loses to UGA in Atlanta, the Tigers will still get in, ahead of the XII and PAC champions.I think so too
And this is what we've been told is the committee's goal....yet there would still be an outcry.
But they could well be on of the four best teams out there anyway.
What's the worst team that can still get in if chaos ensues?Tough one. I’ve got a scenario where Wisconsin could find it’s way in.
Minnesota and Baylor are still technically plausible given enough chaos. VaTech at 10-3? I would say no. LSU could lose to A&M and UGA, UGA could lose to A&M, both then having 2 losses. I think the Pac will have a 12-1 champ.For Minnesota and Baylor I don’t think all that much chaos would have to ensue. They would have to win out and maybe have a game or two outside of their control go their way. In fact, them winning out would be the hardest and least likely parts of those scenarios.
I'm afraid if LSU loses to UGA in Atlanta, the Tigers will still get in, ahead of the XII and PAC champions.That's probably what would happen.
Not the entire CFB universe.You're right, CD.
And this is what we've been told is the committee's goal....yet there would still be an outcry.The outcry would be because you have to make a lot of assumptions to put a one loss non conference champion in over a one loss conference champ, or worse, multiple one loss CCG teams. The evidence of that team being one of the best is then purely speculative opinion.
For Notre Dame:You lost me at Penn State losing to Rutgers.
-Utah loses a regular season game.
-USC wins out and beats Oregon in the Pac 12 CCG.
-Ohio St wins out and beats UW in the CCG.
-Penn St loses its last two.
-Clemson loses to South Carolina and VT in the CCG.
-UGA loses to GT and LSU in the CCG.
-Baylor loses its last two but beats OU in the Big XII CCG.
Wisconsin’s scenario was half way plausible. This one seems too “out there.”
The outcry would be because you have to make a lot of assumptions to put a one loss non conference champion in over a one loss conference champ, or worse, multiple one loss CCG teams. The evidence of that team being one of the best is then purely speculative opinion.Ehh, winning a conference can be a simple confluence of a good team having good fortune. Look at Iowa this year. They're a good team, sure. But who did they draw from the East? By luck of the draw, they have top 15 Michigan and top 10 Penn St. Dammit. Since Minnesota hasn't played Wisconsin yet, the argument could be made Iowa is the best team in the West. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but they could split Wisconsin and Minnesota, but wind up 3rd. Ditto Michigan in the East - drawing Wisconsin and Iowa.
Winning a CCG is factual, and the committee claims it has significant value. Otherwise, why play them $$$...it just represents risk to a team that is in contention.
The subjective route route doesn’t bother me as much as the charade that is played that pretends it’s not. In the end, they just utilize their opinions to pick the four, and spin it how they choose.
You lost me at Penn State losing to Rutgers.UGA losing to GT would be just as nuts. Year 1 post-option has been dreadful for the Jackets.
Ehh, winning a conference can be a simple confluence of a good team having good fortune. Look at Iowa this year. They're a good team, sure. But who did they draw from the East? By luck of the draw, they have top 15 Michigan and top 10 Penn St. Dammit. Since Minnesota hasn't played Wisconsin yet, the argument could be made Iowa is the best team in the West. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but they could split Wisconsin and Minnesota, but wind up 3rd. Ditto Michigan in the East - drawing Wisconsin and Iowa.I think the committee agrees with you. Not necessarily a bad set of thoughts. But they should just say that. Oregon beating Utah in early December, after only having lost a game against a good Auburn team in game one, after leading the entire game - to me that says they are in top form and played well all year. LSU, losing to Georgia in Early December, says to me they are not. That should mean plenty. But if it doesn’t, that’s ok.....let’s just say so. Why risk it if you have already concluded who should be in before those games are played.
If conference schedules were balanced, it would be a much bigger trump card for me. But as diverse as same-conference, same-division schedules are with these huge conferences, I just don't give it all that much credence.
What's the worst team that can still get in if chaos ensues?I know what you are looking for here, and that is correct:
Ehh, winning a conference can be a simple confluence of a good team having good fortune. Look at Iowa this year. They're a good team, sure. But who did they draw from the East? By luck of the draw, they have top 15 Michigan and top 10 Penn St. Dammit. Since Minnesota hasn't played Wisconsin yet, the argument could be made Iowa is the best team in the West. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but they could split Wisconsin and Minnesota, but wind up 3rd. Ditto Michigan in the East - drawing Wisconsin and Iowa.I largely agree with this. Theoretically, a team can go undefeated in a round robin in its own division and yet not win the division. That’s not ideal.
If conference schedules were balanced, it would be a much bigger trump card for me. But as diverse as same-conference, same-division schedules are with these huge conferences, I just don't give it all that much credence.
LSU is 4-0 vs top 10 teams. Oregon is 0-0 and would be 1-0 with a win over the Utes. That's a big discrepancy.Sure, those teams were in the top 10 when played, but only 2 are now. And after this past weekend, my guess is that Texas will probably not even be in the Top 25. Hard to claim that win as a Top 10 win.
What's the worst team that can still get in if chaos ensues?In my view, this is really two different questions:
I think the committee agrees with you. Not necessarily a bad set of thoughts. But they should just say that. Oregon beating Utah in early December, after only having lost a game against a good Auburn team in game one, after leading the entire game - to me that says they are in top form and played well all year. LSU, losing to Georgia in Early December, says to me they are not. That should mean plenty. But if it doesn’t, that’s ok.....let’s just say so. Why risk it if you have already concluded who should be in before those games are played.Yet WHEN you lose has powered the ebb and flow of polls since the caveman days and died in 2003 (OU losing to KSU in the XIICG badly, and staying in the top 2). Short of an injury to a major player, a team's entire resume should be taken into account. A win in Sept = a win in Nov.
the trouble is that the committee says things, but then they don't follow thruIt shouldn't but that still bothers me about 2017. Leading up to the CG's, the committee chair stated that #5 (Bama) through #8 (tOSU) were very close.
I believe they say they take the team's season as a whole. They didn't exclude OSU when their QB got hurt. And labeling what you said as insanity is wrong. Either a team is 11-1 or better or it's not. Either they clear the bar as a legit contender or they don't - how "hot" they are by the last game of the season doesn't supersede the previous 11-12 games, nor does it erase early-season losses.Well when do you decide if a team clears the bar? Now? Before CCG? Don’t you have to take the last game int account?
It shouldn't but that still bothers me about 2017. Leading up to the CG's, the committee chair stated that #5 (Bama) through #8 (tOSU) were very close.Exactly.
Then in the CG's:
- #1 Clemson beat #7 Miami 38-3
- #2 Auburn lost to #6 UGA 28-7
- #3 Oklahoma beat #11 TCU 41-17
- #4 Wisconsin lost to #8 tOSU 27-21
- #5 Bama . . . did nothing because they didn't make their CG
- #6 UGA beat #2 Auburn 28-7
- #7 Miami lost to #1 Clemson 38-3
- #8 Ohio State beat #4 Wisconsin 27-21
Ok, if 5-8 were "very close" before the CG's and #8 beat an undefeated, top-4 team, shouldn't #8 pass #5 who did NOTHING to buttress their case?
The thing is that I don't mind the decision. Ohio State had more and worse losses than Bama. I get the reasoning. I just don't like that they made an obviously false statement. If beating 12-0 and #4 Wisconsin wasn't enough to push Ohio State ahead of Bama then they weren't "very close" before that so don't tell us that they are!
Well when do you decide if a team clears the bar? Now? Before CCG? Don’t you have to take the last game int account?You absolutely take the last game into account, BUT you value it as one game...because it is. A lot of people want to value it more, and that's fine - more because it gives the team a title and/or because it's the most recent outcome. Those are perfectly prudent reasons, but it's also prudent to value it as only one game.
It shouldn't but that still bothers me about 2017. Leading up to the CG's, the committee chair stated that #5 (Bama) through #8 (tOSU) were very close.Everything you said makes perfect sense.
Then in the CG's:
- #1 Clemson beat #7 Miami 38-3
- #2 Auburn lost to #6 UGA 28-7
- #3 Oklahoma beat #11 TCU 41-17
- #4 Wisconsin lost to #8 tOSU 27-21
- #5 Bama . . . did nothing because they didn't make their CG
- #6 UGA beat #2 Auburn 28-7
- #7 Miami lost to #1 Clemson 38-3
- #8 Ohio State beat #4 Wisconsin 27-21
Ok, if 5-8 were "very close" before the CG's and #8 beat an undefeated, top-4 team, shouldn't #8 pass #5 who did NOTHING to buttress their case?
The thing is that I don't mind the decision. Ohio State had more and worse losses than Bama. I get the reasoning. I just don't like that they made an obviously false statement. If beating 12-0 and #4 Wisconsin wasn't enough to push Ohio State ahead of Bama then they weren't "very close" before that so don't tell us that they are!
LSU - UGA winnerI think we're going to see this come Tuesday night:
Clemson
Ohio State
Utah if they win out.
Maybe LSU if they lose in the CG close.
I don't think Baylor/OU can make up enough ground unless Oregon beats Utah and LSU wins.
*I'd like the virtual tie-breaker to be 'best defense', which has tended to be pretty predictive in the playoff and national championship game play.I'd like the tie-breaker to be best strength of schedule
I'd like the tie-breaker to be best strength of scheduleI prefaced it with "if all things are equal" - meaning strength of schedule, record, etc.
12-1 Utah gets in ahead of 12-1 OU, just as they are ahead now in the rankings.I think the committee would construe OU's potential win over Baylor as more impressive than a potential Utah win over Oregon.
I prefaced it with "if all things are equal" - meaning strength of schedule, record, etc.well, SOS would be odd if exactly the same
well, SOS would be odd if exactly the sameNevermind then...
top 10 teams, top 25 teams,Aaaaand you just described a way identical SOS between 2 teams would be unremarkable....:88:
any team out of the top 25 in the poll after the conference champ games wasn't worthy
Which of the top ten teams has played the toughest schedule to date? Or by end of regular season? LSU?this is when strength of conference helps
Clems ... oh wait.
I think we're going to see this come Tuesday night:
1. LSU (should be The OSU, but it won't be)
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Georgia
5. Bama
6. Utah
7. Oklahoma
.
fineSo you don't take into account score at all? :s_laugh:
each team played 1 top 10 team, unless they both played the #6 team it's not identical
team "A" played #6
team "B" played #7
team "A" gets in
Who gets in if all seven of these teams lose this week?The top 3 might stay right there.
So you don't take into account score at all? :s_laugh:not at all
USC is down, Miami, Nebraska, and Texas are down, Tennessee and FSU are down.......and yet we still have helmets at the top. LSU, OSU, OU, Clemson, Bama, etc are chugging along well.I wonder how much of this blends into the sort of flexible nature of helmet and the decade. Clemson started the decade well, but went better than 7-5 only twice from 1992-1999, with a coach who quit to go to Rice. Bama had half a great decade and fell hard at the end with five seasons of 7-5 or worse between 1997-2001. LSU had three winning seasons in the 1990s.
Minnesota tried to crash the party, Baylor's doing well, and Utah is ranked highly.
I guess I'm wondering if that initial list of name programs being down is usually high? That's 6 of the top 15 programs that aren't happy with their results the past 5+ years.
I remember OU, Texas, and USC being down in the mid-90s....but not six simultaneously.
Who gets in if all seven of these teams lose this week?That would be too bizarre I'd almost love to see it - if tOSU could still get in.If memory serves me correctly 2002 was a season where teams stayed at the top for about 2 maybe 3 weeks then get knocked off
I wonder how much of this blends into the sort of flexible nature of helmet and the decade. Clemson started the decade well, but went better than 7-5 only twice from 1992-1999, with a coach who quit to go to Rice. Bama had half a great decade and fell hard at the end with five seasons of 7-5 or worse between 1997-2001. LSU had three winning seasons in the 1990s.hey now, bama 1999 wasn't 7-5 or worse. 10-3 sec champs, with an epic bowl game vs tom brady and mich. bama lost on a missed xp (man, i hate sp teams sometimes).
I think some of it is being in the middle of things, team's misery is more apparent, and I think there's just some changing of the guard. Nebraska never dreamed identity meant what it did. I'm unconvinced Miami was a long-term thing either. Was Clemson a helmet then, and if so, do we just have a few more helmets? Enough to tweak the math?
hey now, bama 1999 wasn't 7-5 or worse. 10-3 sec champs, with an epic bowl game vs tom brady and mich. bama lost on a missed xp (man, i hate sp teams sometimes).Yeah, I feel like Bama's "down" periods have been fewer and further between, and shorter in duration, than many of the other helmets. Same goes for OU.
UGA is a 29 point favorite over GT, that sort of upset is rare. I hope.FWIW: I wasn't suggesting that Georgia might lose to Tech, just covering worst-case-scenarios for the top teams.
Who would you like to see in the playoff, leaving out your team? What would be fun and still possible?Clemson is NOT a helmet school.
Minnesota
Baylor
Alabama*
Utah
*Only because of the angst that would cause, and there is not another non-helmet I can see with a shot. This would mean UGA loses to Tech and beats LSU who already lost to !&M.
My criteria are perhaps a bit broader than those of some here. I think they are a near helmet school today, close enough using the broader notion.(https://media.tenor.com/images/49fac996058270f42a5a77b9c7cff960/tenor.gif)
Yeah, I feel like Bama's "down" periods have been fewer and further between, and shorter in duration, than many of the other helmets. Same goes for OU.osu's the steady eddie of the helmets. their consistency is remarkable, even among the helmets.
Texas and Nebraska have been struggling for a decade now, and Tennessee even longer than that
And Notre Dame is definitely a helmet. They're pretty much THE helmet.
hey now, bama 1999 wasn't 7-5 or worse. 10-3 sec champs, with an epic bowl game vs tom brady and mich. bama lost on a missed xp (man, i hate sp teams sometimes).Errr, meant to write 4 in 5 but was rushing
Errr, meant to write 4 in 5 but was rushingthose were dark times. gotta protect the few good things from those dark ages. we also started out #3 the next year. not sure what happened after that, i think they cancelled the season or something.
Clemson is NOT a helmet school.No, it’s not, in the way we mean it. But in terms of playoff committee what-have-you-done-lately? Clemson is most definitely getting the helmet treatment.
That’s why Minny and Baylor can do whatever they want, but they’re not in the playoff. Neither is an overall helmet or recent helmet status. Both needed an undefeated season and neither had one.If the Gophers row the boat and win out over Wisconsin and Ohio State I would certainly hope they would be in the playoff over Bama
But it's more than that - take that team you're describing and put them up against the team that's been good lately AND was good back in the day....THAT'S helmetocity.
An undefeated Clemson, as the defending NC would get the nod over an undefeated ND in 2019, IMO. Helmet status matters, but it can't negate a great discrepancy in preseason ranking.
The Baylors and Minnesotas of the world aren't just in an uphill climb vs their own schedule, but against the other teams in their band in a given season - teams like Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma.
So if Clemson started out top 5 and ND started out 12th, you still believe this? I don't. If there's one thing that motivates voters more than helmetocity, it's laziness and the incumbent good team will get the nod.
It's a bad hypothetical because an undefeated Clemson and an undefeated Notre Dame are BOTH getting into the CFP.
Take it to 1 loss though, and I don't agree. Notre Dame is a helmet that turns on TV sets across the entire nation. A 1-loss Clemson in a highly questionable ACC has lots its luster immediately. Notre Dame gets the nod on that one.
THAT is helmetosity.
besides, Notre Dame's schedule would be more impressiveRight, but the hypothetical is if SOS is nearly even (unstated).
If the Gophers row the boat and win out over Wisconsin and Ohio State I would certainly hope they would be in the playoff over BamaHope isn't a strategy.
Hope isn't a strategy.I'll go one further, I think Minnesota at 12-1 would go ahead of Bama at 11-1.
So if Clemson started out top 5 and ND started out 12th, you still believe this? I don't. If there's one thing that motivates voters more than helmetocity, it's laziness and the incumbent good team will get the nod.I'm not talking about voters. I'm talking about ESPN's Selection Committee. And yes, I definitely believe they'd move Notre Dame up above a 1-loss Clemson. If there's one thing that motivates ESPN more than laziness, it's money.
I'll go one further, I think Minnesota at 12-1 would go ahead of Bama at 11-1.Have you been in a coma the past 10 years? The committee members haven't (fair or not).
I'm not talking about voters. I'm talking about ESPN's Selection Committee. And yes, I definitely believe they'd move Notre Dame up above a 1-loss Clemson. If there's one thing that motivates ESPN more than laziness, it's money.The committee are the voters....
The committee are the voters....I thought you were talking about poll voters. If you're talking about the Committee, then no, doesn't matter where they started, a 1-loss ND is going above a 1-loss Clemson. Money talks.
Have you been in a coma the past 10 years? The committee members haven't (fair or not).well, the Gopher's resume would be MUCH better than Bama's
So, ESPN in their quest for "ratings" now has a guy outlining a three SEC team playoff scenario:A - he's not wrong
https://247sports.com/college/georgia/Article/College-football-playoff-Alabama-LSU-Georgia-ESPN-SEC-Network-139244316/?fbclid=IwAR2ZiZ7W1IQ-6kZ-xJWTr7tOIv157IXeghs4yfznEN8snP87IdlfNVAdDVg (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/Article/College-football-playoff-Alabama-LSU-Georgia-ESPN-SEC-Network-139244316/?fbclid=IwAR2ZiZ7W1IQ-6kZ-xJWTr7tOIv157IXeghs4yfznEN8snP87IdlfNVAdDVg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/892906648083111937/122HXkCy_bigger.jpg) (https://twitter.com/PeterBurnsESPN)
(https://twitter.com/PeterBurnsESPN)Peter Burns
✔@PeterBurnsESPN
(https://twitter.com/PeterBurnsESPN)
(https://twitter.com/PeterBurnsESPN/status/1198961621424578561)
(https://twitter.com/PeterBurnsESPN/status/1198961621424578561)3 SEC Teams in Playoff?
OK State beats Okla
Oklahoma beats Baylor
Michigan beats Ohio State
Georgia beats LSU
Oregon beats Utah
Wisky beats Minnesota
Wisky beats Ohio State
CFB Playoff is
1) Clemson
2) UGA
3) LSU
4) Bama
So, ESPN in their quest for "ratings" now has a guy outlining a three SEC team playoff scenario:ESPN has its head so far up the SEC's butt that Bristol is now a suburb of Atlanta.
https://247sports.com/college/georgia/Article/College-football-playoff-Alabama-LSU-Georgia-ESPN-SEC-Network-139244316/?fbclid=IwAR2ZiZ7W1IQ-6kZ-xJWTr7tOIv157IXeghs4yfznEN8snP87IdlfNVAdDVg (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/Article/College-football-playoff-Alabama-LSU-Georgia-ESPN-SEC-Network-139244316/?fbclid=IwAR2ZiZ7W1IQ-6kZ-xJWTr7tOIv157IXeghs4yfznEN8snP87IdlfNVAdDVg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/892906648083111937/122HXkCy_bigger.jpg) (https://twitter.com/PeterBurnsESPN)
(https://twitter.com/PeterBurnsESPN)Peter Burns
✔@PeterBurnsESPN
(https://twitter.com/PeterBurnsESPN)
(https://twitter.com/PeterBurnsESPN/status/1198961621424578561)
(https://twitter.com/PeterBurnsESPN/status/1198961621424578561)3 SEC Teams in Playoff?
OK State beats Okla
Oklahoma beats Baylor
Michigan beats Ohio State
Georgia beats LSU
Oregon beats Utah
Wisky beats Minnesota
Wisky beats Ohio State
CFB Playoff is
1) Clemson
2) UGA
3) LSU
4) Bama
I'm not sold on the ND over Clemson thing, but right now, Bama has the shiniest helmet. Minnesota's helmet might as well be made of leather and cracked.That's fair, we're all just expressing opinions.
If LSU wins out and Minnesota wins the B10, I'm not even sure the Gophers would be ranked ahead of the Buckeyes. And if they were, then it's likely Alabama AND Minnesota would be in it.
I don't believe it's about TV ratings.That's adorable.
Yeah, I feel like Bama's "down" periods have been fewer and further between, and shorter in duration, than many of the other helmets. Same goes for OU.Once upon a time, I looked at OU's history and Texas' history and concluded that OU had had more peaks (NCs and undefeated seasons) but also more valleys (outright bad seasons). But over the last 20 years, that has changed. The Stoop-Riley-era Sooners have been consistently good for the longest period in school history, but the highest peaks have been fewer and farther between.
Texas and Nebraska have been struggling for a decade now, and Tennessee even longer than that
And Notre Dame is definitely a helmet. They're pretty much THE helmet.
An NY6 invite today is still a something.Is it?
Is it?It is to me, as long as the opponent is a name team. Getting into a NY6 bowl seems like you're in the "in" group for that season.
I agree it should be, but does anyone care?
A NY6 bowl loses nearly all of its luster if you're facing a G5 team or (this year) the #2 ACC team. Ick.Yeah, that hit the Dawgs last year when they played some no name team and took them for granted.
It is to me, as long as the opponent is a name team. Getting into a NY6 bowl seems like you're in the "in" group for that season.I think I agree. But meh. There is no discussion of who is playing in the Sugar Bowl or the Rose Bowl. A good deal of the time one team or the other is either the Go5 team, or a team that had CFP hopes dashed, and it just feels like a lame consolation prize. How often in the CFP era have we had a NY6 (non CFP) game between two P5 teams that didn't have CFP plans dashed either in a loss in the finale or a selection committee decision? Like for Florida last year, or MSU in 2014, absolutely. But both cases they played teams that saw playing in "just" a NY6 game as a drop from what they thought they were getting, so it didn't have the oomph of some non-title BCS games.
Compare it to going to any bowl, back when there were only a handful of them. Being a bowl team meant you had a good season. Now that there are 248 bowl games, you need a line drawn somewhere, and the NY6 means you were generally a top-10ish team that year. That's a good line to be above, if not in the playoff.
#6 10-1 Utah:I don't think that Utah has to lose for Oklahoma to get in. If both end up 12-1 conference champs, it's a judgment call for the Committee.
The Utes need to win out and root for Auburn.
#7 10-1 Oklahoma:
The Sooners need to win out and root for either Colorado or Oregon to beat Utah and it wouldn't hurt if Auburn beat Bama.
It is to me, as long as the opponent is a name team. Getting into a NY6 bowl seems like you're in the "in" group for that season.For me, it's got to be more than just a "name" team
For me, it's got to be more than just a "name" teamSee, I view Oregon and Georgia as name programs, and Baylor/Utah as not.
gotta be a team with some history or rivalry or something
If the Huskers were matched up with, for example, the Sooners, Horns, Miami, Florida St., Notre Dame, Bama, this would be somethingthe press might pick up.
playing Baylor or Utah or Oregon or Georgia??? not so much
See, I view Oregon and Georgia as name programs, and Baylor/Utah as not.I agree, just saying Nebraska playing Georgia or Oregon in the Suga or the Rose doesn't move the needle for fans or the media
Whatever happens, if it comes down to Utah and OU, I hope the committee values Utah's defense over OU's helmet....but I'm not optimistic about it.What you ought to say is that you hope the Committee values defense over offense, but that would be insincere.
I agree, just saying Nebraska playing Georgia or Oregon in the Suga or the Rose doesn't move the needle for fans or the media
I don't think that Utah has to lose for Oklahoma to get in. If both end up 12-1 conference champs, it's a judgment call for the Committee.I obviously do not KNOW what the committee would do. Oklahoma is behind Utah in the current rankings but Oklahoma has #21 OkSU then #9 Baylor left while Utah has sub .500 Colorado and #14 Oregon. My guess is that if it comes down to 12-1 OU vs 12-1 Utah for the last spot it will largely be decided based on style points in these last two games each. Ie, if OU gets from here to 12-1 by winning twice in OT while Utah smashes the Buffaloes and Ducks then I think Utah would get it but the reverse is also true.
The judgment might come down to which is more important, the resume or style points. Right now, OU has the better resume, while Utah has the more convincing wins.
It would help OU to blow out oSu and Baylor, but OU is not blowing out anybody lately, averaging 3 turnovers a game over the last month.
What you ought to say is that you hope the Committee values defense over offense, but that would be insincere.I value the types of teams that tend to do best. Not sure where you'll pulling insincerity from.
Oklahoma is behind Utah in the current rankings but Oklahoma has #21 OkSU then #9 Baylor left while Utah has sub .500 Colorado and #14 Oregon. My guess is that if it comes down to 12-1 OU vs 12-1 Utah for the last spot it will largely be decided based on style points in these last two games each. Ie, if OU gets from here to 12-1 by winning twice in OT while Utah smashes the Buffaloes and Ducks then I think Utah would get it but the reverse is also true.You hit the nail on the proverbial here, I suspect. Oddly enough, if a team smashes another it suggests that opponent was not very good. I think a score like 34-17 is ideal, you won convincingly, but left room for the vanquished to be considered to still be pretty good.
I frankly do not think that Alabama will get in even at 11-1 if there is a 12-1 Oklahoma or Utah available. It is a bit shakier if the 12-1 team is Baylor or Minnesota.not sure about Baylor's schedule, but if the Gophers go 12-1 they are in over Bama
one loss Bamma gets the nod over 2 loss champsI think 'bama gets in over several 1-loss champs as well.
and I'm fine with that
I'm just going to put this here:I don't think they're surprised at all. Have you read/heard/seen anything to suggest that?
1. Ohio State 11-1
2. LSU 11-2
3. Oklahoma 11-2
4. Georgia 10-2
5. VA Tech 11-2
6. USC 10-2
7. Missouri 11-2
8. Kansas 11-1
Non-helmets don't get treated the same as helmets, period. So idk why Minnesota or Baylor fans would be at all surprised if they're left out. For the umpteenth time, resume is only part of it. You have to prove you belong, and for the old, lazy fogies running things, that takes more than a single season. Yes, it's stupid, but it's the reality of the thing.
I'm just going to put this here:But I thought that your theory was that the lazy old fogies just ranked 'em by number of losses. Now you're saying that they do more than that. Now they lazily rank them by losses and then lazily adjust them according to helmetosity. Maybe they're also lazily adjusting them to account for the "what have you done lately" factor.
1. Ohio State 11-1
2. LSU 11-2
3. Oklahoma 11-2
4. Georgia 10-2
5. VA Tech 11-2
6. USC 10-2
7. Missouri 11-2
8. Kansas 11-1
Non-helmets don't get treated the same as helmets, period. So idk why Minnesota or Baylor fans would be at all surprised if they're left out. For the umpteenth time, resume is only part of it. You have to prove you belong, and for the old, lazy fogies running things, that takes more than a single season. Yes, it's stupid, but it's the reality of the thing.
Had Baylor and/or Minnesota looked better against lame competition, they might get ranked higher. This doesn't have to be about helmet, it can simple reflect performance.Exactly.
Take the names out and look at the actual records of each team.
Exactly.Furthermore, if helmetosity were the be-all, end-all, then Oklahoma would currently be ranked ahead of Utah. So it appears that the pollsters, including the committee members, are taking record, strength of schedule, margin of victory, eyeball test, and helmet-status in producing the current rankings.
Instead of blaming "helmet" or some vague conspiracy let's be honest about resumes. Baylor and Minnesota had weak OOC's and way too many too-close wins. That would hurt any team, irrespective of their relative "helmet".
I don't think they're surprised at all. Have you read/heard/seen anything to suggest that?The fans can't do anything about it, but the Baylor football program can. Schedule better OOC opponents, including at least one P5 conference member. And then beat them.
I can't speak for Minnesota fans, the only one I know isGopherRock and he can certainly speak for himself.
But the Baylor fans I know aren't surprised when they get passed over/left out/dismissed. They understand the way the system works.
They're not surprised, but they're certainly annoyed/angered/outraged by it. Because they know there's nothing they can do about it.
The fans can't do anything about it, but the Baylor football program can. Schedule better OOC opponents, including at least one P5 conference member. And then beat them.Exactly.
Same for Minnesota.
Which four teams go to the CFB Playoffs if the underdogs go 5-0 in the P5 CCGs?My guess is UGA, LSU, tOSU, and Baylor.
Furthermore, if helmetosity were the be-all, end-all,To quote myself...,"That plays into it."
To quote myself...,"That plays into it."I wasn't responding to one of your posts, or even to someone quoting one of your posts.
You construe that as "be-all, end-all"? Cool.
I wasn't responding to one of your posts, or even to someone quoting one of your posts.They're not mutually exclusive.
But you have said on many occasions that all the voters look at is W/L record.
Then in the last day or so you have said or implied with a list of ranked teams from over a decade ago that it's all about the helmets.
So make up your mind. It's either all about the W/L record or it is not. Which is it?
Exactly.So this is interesting because it asks for a kind of silly level of foresight.
Back in 2014 Baylor missed the first CFP with a weak OOC slate. They apparently learned nothing, thus year's OOC:Stephen F Austin
Texas San Antonio
Rice
If Baylor ends up 12-1 and out of the CFP they have nobody to blame but themselves.
So, that cleared up the situation a good bit, I think.
LSU should be heavily favored over UGA, same for Clemson over UVA, and OSU over Wisconsin. Then we have the Utah/OU/Baylor group (and possibly LSU/OSU/Clemson if they get upset). My guess is Utah, which would be "new" and different. After all this, we're down to the final two games for most teams.
I suppose you're right, the won't have anyone to blame but themselves. They were the ones that actually got to 12-1.if you're scheduling to get to a bowl, then be happy if you are left out at #5 or #6. Your scheduling worked and it's one of the reasons you're 12-1
It is more than one game. Basically a Conference Tournament, with only two participants.It's quite literally one game. It is a game vs a good opponent, so there's that.
It is more than one game. Basically a Conference Tournament, with only two participants.It's hard to believe this is an actual thought by a human adult.
Why does it bother you a CCG loser gets in the playoff? While at the same time, I'm certain you'd have no problem with a team that lost to a worse team earlier in the season winning their CCG getting in......Basically the same reason they say “well they’re playing much better now than they were then”
Why do people have such a hard time understanding the CCG is precisely one game that just happens to be at the end of the season???
I am of the opinion that conference champions should be given heavier weight than the Committee appears to do.Have we seen much to say the committee doesn’t weigh them?
So, if you lose the CG and are 12-1, to me it means more than winning after having lost in the regular season. But in the case of LSU and OSU I think they earned that exception during the regular season.
It's hard to believe this is an actual thought by a human adult.If you'd like to discuss something, please try and do so without the condescending douchbaggery. TiA.
If you'd like to discuss something, please try and do so without the condescending douchbaggery. TiA.I have to agree. I like OAM and agree with a lot of his thoughts but this constant way he has of talking down to people and then clutching his pearls when they go on the attack is getting old.
well, the committee has encouraged this thoughtEven the most intelligent people are often slaves to traditional, group-think. Unfortunately.
a group of hopefully intelligent adults
By definition the CCG is a bigger game than some random game during the regular season. It is a post season game, and quite literally has a Conference Title riding on the outcome.You say this, and I'm sure the idea is echoed by many...yet at the same time, we all agree that CCGs are money-grabs.
Same with ACC, it's a matter of claiming the conference championship, which is a thing I think. If Wisconsin wins, the get that crown. OSU might do a Bama and go one to win an NC of course.How meaningful is it if Virginia beats Clemson and becomes 2019 ACC Champions? Everyone knows who is better, who had the better season, and who would still be in the playoff hunt.
Everyone is pretty sure LSU and OSU are already in the playoff.
Well said. But I've been told on this thread that it isn't just another data point. Now I'm conflicted.
one more data point is better than not
We don't need a B1G CCG to know who is the best. We already know it.Precisely.
How meaningful is it if Virginia beats Clemson and becomes 2019 ACC Champions? Everyone knows who is better, who had the better season, and who would still be in the playoff hunt.could be damn meaningful to Clemson
Hint: not the conference champion
Precisely.perhaps not
entertainment/$$$$$$$ >>>>>>>>>> competition
perhaps notI hate to be the one making this argument when it is for my team, but I disagree.
if the Badgers play a great game there could be a solid question regarding what team is better
It's certainly cool. You get a trophy. But it doesn't help you get into the playoff. Now, winning your conference may be the next-best thing, but I'll be radical and stick with it's one more game. One more data point. I get reamed for pointing out how silly it is for someone to say one game is more than one game. But it is.Well, according to the committee it actually IS supposed to help you get in the playoff. So I get the idea that it’s just one more data point and I probably tend to look at it that way.
I hate to be the one making this argument when it is for my team, but I disagree.I agree that tOSU would have the better resume and I would expect the committee to pick the Buckeyes as better, but that's no guarantee the Buckeyes would win a 3rd head to head meeting
If Wisconsin wins the B1GCG in a blowout, they and tOSU would be 1-1 H2H with a blowout each way. I see that as a wash and tOSU's other 11 games are unequivocally better.
Even with an additional loss and MUCH lower point differential?If we are talking Wisconsin and Ohio St then a UW win wouldn’t be enough for me personally but it should definitely close the gap. At the very least UW’s win makes it a much more interesting discussion. Because they then have very comparable wins and Wisconsin would have the conference championship.
Even the most intelligent people are often slaves to traditional, group-think. Unfortunately.Right.
We don't need a B1G CCG to know who is the best. We already know it.This year we know it.
Right.No it's not. The data is an example of it.
The widespread idea that Big 12 teams don't play defense while SEC teams do is an example of this.
I agree that tOSU would have the better resume and I would expect the committee to pick the Buckeyes as better, but that's no guarantee the Buckeyes would win a 3rd head to head meetingWho has even hinted at this?!?!?!?!?
If we are talking Wisconsin and Ohio St then a UW win wouldn’t be enough for me personally but it should definitely close the gap. At the very least UW’s win makes it a much more interesting discussion. Because they then have very comparable wins and Wisconsin would have the conference championship.It would narrow the gap...but there would still be an obvious gap.
The Illinois loss is still hard to overcome for me. If the extra loss wasn’t to them and was maybe to some really quality OOC opponent then, yeah, maybe I would think UW would deserve the nod there.
No it's not. The data is an example of it.Is Vanderbilt in the SEC? How about Arkansas?
You may have some argument about LSU, specifically, this year, but that's it. The overwhelming avalanche of data support the claim.
It would narrow the gap...but there would still be an obvious gap.What you are doing here is very interesting.
...and Wisconsin would have the conference championship.
Okay, is that something they can fold up and put in their back pocket? Because in this instance, that's about all they can do with it.
Now let's discuss the meaninglessness of OU's initial victory over Baylor earlier this year....Heh! I've said many times that arguments for CCGs and the CFP based on "settling it on the field" are meaningless if CCGs and the CFP include the possibility/probability/certainty of rematches. If it's "settled," then there's no need to settle it again.
(https://i.imgur.com/cTv2msD.jpg)
What you are doing here is very interesting.Umm, not sure what to say about this other than.....it's better to win than to lose?
You don't like the CFP, and yet, while arguing that the CCG winner is not necessarily the best team, you are also making the point that winning your conference and going to a good bowl game--the former metric of a successful season--is meaningless because CFP ratings say otherwise.
Doc Tom Osborne's Orange bowl in 78!:57:
Many believe the Sooners were the better team that season
unfortunately for Tom, the Sooners got a 2nd chance to prove it
I'm SUPER excited that IF Florida makes a NY6 bowl, we'll either get to play Memphis in the Cotton or Virginia in the Orange.Think about it from the other side, you play all year, win a trophy or two, catch a fourth-place team that arrived with a participation ribbon.
FUNNNNNNNN
Umm, not sure what to say about this other than.....it's better to win than to lose?You and I are in agreement, it seems, about CCGs and the CFP.
If you go to a particular bowl, does it matter if you're a conference champion or not? All these people wanting to expand the playoff to 6 or 8 want conference champs and at-large spots....which renders the conference championship even more meaningless.
I'm SUPER excited that IF Florida makes a NY6 bowl, we'll either get to play Memphis in the Cotton or Virginia in the Orange.You should hope that your team doesn't feel the same way, lest it perform a repeat of OU vs. Boise State.
FUNNNNNNNN
so far, the committee has ALWAYS taken the non-champion with fewer lossesIt is interesting. I know that @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) hates the way they nearly always rank the undefeated teams first, then the 1-loss teams, then the 2-loss teams, etc.
OAM is just like the committee
OAM also generally places less emphasis on Conference Titles than most posters here.
OAM is just like the committeeOr I’m just good at describing what they do instead of whining about what they should do.
so, my dream of a CCG upset costing a conference a spot in the playoff is down to the ACC?Didn't cost the XII when OU lost to KSU.
Didn't cost the XII when OU lost to KSU.From Bleacher Report (bold is me):
https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/what-sec-championship-game-tickets-cost-now/xNjdgcXKL749wvkGGsy4KP/# (https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/what-sec-championship-game-tickets-cost-now/xNjdgcXKL749wvkGGsy4KP/#)Come On Man
The SEC, it just costs more.
Not biting this year.
I think that in our/their hearts, most CFB fans believe that a late loss is worse than an early loss. Whether we are actually right or not, most of us "know" that losing in late November/early December matters more than a loss back around Labor Day. Even the Committee has overtly expressed recency bias on occasion. For example, one of the discussion points about Oregon was that its loss to Auburn was somewhat forgivable because (a) it was very close, (b) Auburn was a good team, and (c) it was in the opening game.
. . . How important is a conference title to the committee? If you are in the "13 data points, all are equal" camp then you have to support LSU/tOSU over Baylor/OU/Utah. If you are in the "you can't be best in the country if you don't win your own conference" camp then you have to support Baylor/OU/Utah over LSU/tOSU.
we've been conditioned to this by the AP poll and Coaches poll for decadesExactly. Late losses being damning is simply a tradition. Not a valid reason.
doesn't mean it's right
I don't believe it
a loss is a loss in my book
I'll be the first to say that I often do not understand the reasoning of the 538 folks. Also, I do not know how much trust to put in their prognosis. But, FWIW, they have OU ahead of UGA in probability of making the CFP. I think that Georgia has been ahead for at least the last couple of weeks, but now the Dawgs are now the #5 probability.I usually think that 538 does a great job but I just think their probabilities are a little off here.
For the following, I'm keeping all conditions left blank except the ones I specifically mention.
If OU beats Baylor (64% probability), its probability of making the CFP is 87%.
If Georgia beats LSU (43%), its probability of making the CFP is >99% and LSU's probability is 17%.
If OU and Georgia both win, OU's probability is 85% and Georgia's is >99%.
If Utah beats Oregon (55%), its probability is 50%.
If Baylor beats OU (36%), its probability is 52%.
If Wisconsin beats Ohio State (24%), its probability is 35% and Ohio State's probability is 37%.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-college-football-predictions/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-college-football-predictions/)
Oklahoma:
- 57% chance to make the playoff,
- 87% if they beat Baylor,
- <1% if they lose to Baylor.
I think they are overestimating Oklahoma's chances here. I still think that if Utah looks dramatically more impressive in beating Oregon than OU looks in beating Baylor, Utah will wind up ranked ahead of Oklahoma. Additionally, I'm not convinced that either OU or Utah can jump either tOSU or LSU in any case.
Utah:Ok, this sounds about right to me.
- 28% chance to make the playoff,
- 50% if they beat Oregon,
- <1% if they lose to Oregon.
.
Agree with pretty much everything you've said, but not sure I understand how you're reconciling these two statements you've made above.One thing is that a lot will be clarified when we see where the committee puts Utah, Oklahoma, Baylor, and Oregon tonight. I agree that Baylor will be considered a better opponent than Oregon but I do think that how much better matters.
If you agree that Utah has a lesser chance than OU to make the playoff if they both beat their respective opponents in their CCGs, then I'm not sure how you'd say, above that, that you think they're overestimating OU's chances to make the playoff?
I think their assigned percentages--- given wins in their CCGs, obviously-- are consistent and about right.
I understand your caveat that if Utah looks dramatically better, they could put in Utah over OU, but then below that you say that UTah's chances at 28% total and 50% if they win, looks about tight to you. I'm not challenging or calling you out, just wondering about your reasoning there.
Overall I think if all goes to chalk-- that is if LSU, Clemson, and Ohio State all win-- and there's only one slot left, then a 12-1 OU goes ahead of a 12-1 Utah in almost every scenario. And that's largely because Baylor is already considered a better opponent than Oregon. The ONLY case where it doesn't, is just a really sloppy horrible game from OU against Baylor, while Utah absolutely destroys Oregon.
But I'm not sure what that even looks like in real life. A 6-3 win for OU and a 49-7 win for Oregon? Seems like that 6-3 win is just the kind of SEC defensive slugfest everyone professes they love so much. Or is it a 74-72 7OT win for OU, and a 35-3 win for Utah? Would that do it? I just don't know, realistically as it plays out, how "ugly" an OU win has to be over a Baylor squad that is considered better than Oregon, to lose that 4th spot to Utah.
One thing is that a lot will be clarified when we see where the committee puts Utah, Oklahoma, Baylor, and Oregon tonight.the committee has shown the 2nd to the last poll and the final poll can be quite different
the committee has shown the 2nd to the last poll and the final poll can be quite differentYup. I don't really think where they have them placed tonight will ultimately affect anything. Their "process" is designed so that they can use pretty much any criterion they like to rationalize a move, even if it's nonsense to half of the general college football viewing public.
Yup. I don't really think where they have them placed tonight will ultimately affect anything. Their "process" is designed so that they can use pretty much any criterion they like to rationalize a move, even if it's nonsense to half of the general college football viewing public.So, you're saying it'll be LSU, Bama, Georgia and Florida then?
My guess is they'll keep them all very close, so they can move them however they like after the CCGs are played with little need to justify anything.
So, you're saying it'll be LSU, Bama, Georgia and Florida then?
UCS is their helmet, since this game was early in the season, the PAC was protecting their best chance of a playoff teamDid your account get hacked by McTerps?
no one knew USC was going to lose more games and the Utes would continue to win
ya see what happens, Larry?
Did your account get hacked by McTerps?Girl Drinking Beer Like A Pro (https://lostandfoundtobe.com/girl-drinking-bear-like-a-pro/amp/?fbclid=IwAR1vD3goJ1AMOqEsY0j7q833uWcdIOoDWT-mg87JpOTKtdE6y6S_-lDQhMo)
Conspiracy theory: Utah wore OSU-adjacent uniforms in an attempt to subliminally seem better in the committee's minds while they discuss the playoff teams and watch highlights.My FIL said he looked it was watching OSU on Saturday, after we watched OSU dismantle Michigan earlier. I agreed.
Yup. I don't really think where they have them placed tonight will ultimately affect anything. Their "process" is designed so that they can use pretty much any criterion they like to rationalize a move, even if it's nonsense to half of the general college football viewing public.You hit the nail right on the head, Utee.
My guess is they'll keep them all very close, so they can move them however they like after the CCGs are played with little need to justify anything.
Yup. I don't really think where they have them placed tonight will ultimately affect anything. Their "process" is designed so that they can use pretty much any criterion they like to rationalize a move, even if it's nonsense to half of the general college football viewing public.In fairness to the committee they should be kept close and there really would be justification for any of the three to get in if they win this weekend. The differences between these three is really razor thin. If chalk holds in the other games then I couldn’t really criticize the CFP for whatever decision they decide to make between OU/Baylor/Utah. There isn’t a wrong choice, IMO.
My guess is they'll keep them all very close, so they can move them however they like after the CCGs are played with little need to justify anything.
In fairness to the committee they should be kept close and there really would be justification for any of the three to get in if they win this weekend. The differences between these three is really razor thin. If chalk holds in the other games then I couldn’t really criticize the CFP for whatever decision they decide to make between OU/Baylor/Utah. There isn’t a wrong choice, IMO.Well, I'd argue that there IS a wrong choice if they picked the B12 CCG loser over the winner, but... ;)
Conspiracy theory: Utah wore OSU-adjacent uniforms in an attempt to subliminally seem better in the committee's minds while they discuss the playoff teams and watch highlights.I like it.
Conspiracy theory: Utah wore OSU-adjacent uniforms in an attempt to subliminally seem better in the committee's minds while they discuss the playoff teams and watch highlights.
I like it.
Conspiracy theory: Utah wore OSU-adjacent uniforms in an attempt to subliminally seem better in the committee's minds while they discuss the playoff teams and watch highlights.Eh, then why would Arkansas wear uniforms modeled after the Cowboys when they play in JerryWorld?
Arkansas is obviously not in a position where any imagery could afford a slight subconscious benefit ...Hey, even fat guys look a little thinner in black
Arkansas is obviously not in a position where any imagery could afford a slight subconscious benefit ...
I think the only remaining question is whether UGA can upset LSU. I can't see Clemson losing to UVA.
LSU is about one TD favorite which means they'd win about 2/3rds of the time.
Is there a scenario where LSU loses without someone saying they took a dive to get two SEC teams in the playoff?Funny, I was idly thinking this yesterday. I don't think it's a real scenario in the real world, but it would be in the interest of the SEC obviously.
In fairness to the committee they should be kept close and there really would be justification for any of the three to get in if they win this weekend. The differences between these three is really razor thin. If chalk holds in the other games then I couldn’t really criticize the CFP for whatever decision they decide to make between OU/Baylor/Utah. There isn’t a wrong choice, IMO.the only wrong choice is Utah over the Sooners, if the Sooners win.
Is there a scenario where LSU loses without someone saying they took a dive to get two SEC teams in the playoff?maybe they don't "take a dive", maybe the SEC zebras help the Dawgs at every chance
the only wrong choice is Utah over the Sooners, if the Sooners win.Eh, that wouldn’t be wrong to me. Really close between those two. As a fan of a non-helmet I’d actually love to see a non-helmet get the nod when all things are basically equal.
Sooners have the helmet
maybe they don't "take a dive", maybe the SEC zebras help the Dawgs at every chanceForgot about the ref angle. Is there any way LSU loses without it raising conspiracy eyebrows?
absolutely NOTYeah, that’s what I was afraid of.
especially for the PAC or Big 12
absolutely NOT
especially for the PAC or Big 12
Yeah, that’s what I was afraid of.
Hooray, conspiracy theorists!I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m actually trying to squash that. But I’m afraid there is no way for UGA, who is actually a hell of a team, to win without those theories being floated.
The only people that would take a dive on the SEC CG are fat and rich and wearing suits. Not the coaches, not the players, and no the refs. Sheesh.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m actually trying to squash that. But I’m afraid there is no way for UGA, who is actually a hell of a team, to win without those theories being floated.Then it reflects poorly on the college football culture, not you as an individual.
Funny, I was idly thinking this yesterday. I don't think it's a real scenario in the real world, but it would be in the interest of the SEC obviously.
IF UGA wins, I bet this becomes a story.
Hooray, conspiracy theorists!the refs are paid by fat rich suits
The only people that would take a dive on the SEC CG are fat and rich and wearing suits. Not the coaches, not the players, and no the refs. Sheesh.
The key will be watching the officiating. A few critical calls in UGA's favorite and it will feed the story.There doesn’t even need to be controversial calls go in UGA’s favor. When people go into watching a game with that mindset it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They start perceiving LSU is getting away with holding calls, grabbing wide receivers, etc. Maybe I just keep bad company.
Conspiracy theory: Utah wore OSU-adjacent uniforms in an attempt to subliminally seem better in the committee's minds while they discuss the playoff teams and watch highlights.Alternate conspiracy theory: There are three Pac-12-affiliated members of the Selection Committee, none of whom have to recuse themselves when Utah is discussed, while there is only one Big 12-affiliated member, and he has to recuse himself when OU is discussed. In addition, Frank Beamer has to recuse himself, as his son Shane is an OU coach.
Alternate conspiracy theory: There are three Pac-12-affiliated members of the Selection Committee, none of whom have to recuse themselves when Utah is discussed, while there is only one Big 12-affiliated member, and he has to recuse himself when OU is discussed. In addition, Frank Beamer has to recuse himself, as his son Shane is an OU coach.if this is the case, then the Big 12 will instruct the refs to make sure Baylor wins
Rob Mullens (chairman) Oregon athletic director
Paola Boivin Former The Arizona Republic reporter
Ronnie Lott Former Southern California defensive back
Joe Castiglione Oklahoma athletic director
Frank Beamer Former Virginia Tech head coach
if this is the case, then the Big 12 will instruct the refs to make sure Baylor winsNah, B12 knows about helmet status.
the Big 12 has quite a quandaryTheoretically, yes.
If Baylor wins and Utah and UGA lose, I see no alternative to Baylor being in. I'm fine with that.If the favorites all win otherwise, no monkeying will be necessary. tOSU and Clemson would be 1/2 while UGA/LSU would be 3/4.
I think if LSU loses somehow, the Interwebs will light up about choosing 12-1 LSU versus 12-1 Baylor/Utah/OU. I think LSU would still get in, they'd monkey the order to the rematch would not be the next game somehow.
Each fan base has a lot of "members" who see ref bias in just about every close game. Oddly, they rarely notice when some marginal call goes their way.This is true. Crooked/incompetent refs always err in favor of the other team.
The worst officials are MLB. They think they are the show.Reason #1,567,294 not to watch MLB.
Officials seem to like to be on TV, in general.
I've noticed, over the years, that there seems to be a connection to how a game is called versus what the weather is doing. Cold, snow, pouring rain.. a lot less calls get made. Has anyone else noticed this?
A 12-1 LSU would have a better resume than a 12-1 UGA, aside from the H-2-H thingee.As far as avoiding a rematch is concerned it wouldn't matter unless tOSU or Clemson also lose.
Most will think that a coach like Pelini will spite the officials enough to have some calls go against his team that otherwise would notCould be.
UGA-Clemson in ATL would sell out rather dramatically I suspect if it happened (duh). OSU-LSU in Tempe is not really a geographic advantage for OSU versus ATL. OSU might prefer ATL even playing Clemson or even UGA. Tempe is harder to get to for most teams than Atlanta. They have a rather large airport here.We can only wish that game was still played in Tempe, which is easy to get to from PHX. Glendale.. yuck.
I am strangely optimistic about the Dawgs' chances. I rather suspect it is in part because my logical brain does not expect a W, so the pressure is off so to speak.
if the airport in Phoenix can't handle the traffic, folks could fly into Vegas and make the 4 1/2 hour driveSky Harbor in Phoenix (PHX) is humongous and shouldn't have any problem with the traffic but Vegas is a nice stopover anyway.
We can only wish that game was still played in Tempe, which is easy to get to from PHX. Glendale.. yuck.That was my fault, I'm the one who said Tempe.
Could always play one of the games in Soldier Field. There's a big airport here too. Two, actually.
That was my fault, I'm the one who said Tempe.The sterileness of the major bowls is very disappointing. The Fiesta, Cotton and Orange Bowls were so much better in their old locations.
I should know better, I've been to that game in both locations.
Tempe was WAY better. I think I've erased the memories of my trip to Glendale in 2007 (2006 season).
I'm sure the airport can handle traffic, it's a matter of nonstop flights that perhaps is the issue. I hate having connections on a domestic flight.the SUX airport, closest to me has 3 or 4 non stop destinations - maybe just 2
Tempe has 108 destinations reachable nonstop, ATL has 238.
UGA-Clemson in ATL would sell out rather dramatically I suspect if it happened (duh). OSU-LSU in Tempe is not really a geographic advantage for OSU versus ATL. OSU might prefer ATL even playing Clemson or even UGA. Tempe is harder to get to for most teams than Atlanta. They have a rather large airport here.Sky Harbor
I am strangely optimistic about the Dawgs' chances. I rather suspect it is in part because my logical brain does not expect a W, so the pressure is off so to speak.
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-best-and-worst-u-s-airports-of-2019-11573658675 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-best-and-worst-u-s-airports-of-2019-11573658675) |
I'd say 99% of Ohio State fans interested in going can get to ATL on a direct flight. That figure may be 50% for Phoenix.
Anyway, the old stadia often had some panache, but some are broken down relics (Bobby Dodd is an example).
The new ones seem high on hype and low on, well, something. The cheap hotdogs in MB stadium is a plus.
A person might well prefer one airport over another, no doubt, while also preferring a nonstop flight over a lay over. I do anyway. And of course, from Ohio it is not a terrible drive to get to Atlanta.You are right and if I were going I'd make the drive. Per Mr. Google, Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta is a little over a 10 hour drive from my garage but I have made that in a LOT less than that. Their calculation only averages 66.15 MPH (678 mi in 10:15) Averaging 70 or 75 gets that down to about 9:40 or 9:02 respectively. I've done it in nine hours flat all stops included but that is REALLY hauling A*& and not having anybody in the car who needs to pee any more often than the car needs gas.
Having recently played there is probably a modest advantage, I agree (even if you lost). I'm just pondering why it helps OSU to be moved to Arizona when ATL is relatively close, even if it's much closer for probable opponents.As an Ohio State fan, Atlanta is better for me than Glendale because Atlanta is drivable and a pretty easy flight to get. That, however, is not the question.
As an Ohio State fan, Atlanta is better for me than Glendale because Atlanta is drivable and a pretty easy flight to get. That, however, is not the question.I think you're right about the terminology.
I'm not entirely positive of this but the terminology that I remember hearing is that #1 cannot be put at a "geographic disadvantage". That is a relative term and it depends who the opponent is.
Thus, a hypothetical #1 Ohio State would not play UGA or Clemson in Atlanta nor Utah in Glendale because UGA/Clemson are substantially closer to Atlanta while Utah is substantially closer to Glendale. LSU is a closer call because Baton Rouge is closer to both Atlanta and Glendale.
Fun? Fact about Sun Devil Stadium (pre-reno):Designers and users talk to each other before the design is finalized? Nah!
In 2007, engineers realized the stadium's concrete base was buckling due to the rusting of structural steel supporting the foundation. Stadium designers had neglected to waterproof the structure when it was built, assuming a stadium in the desert would not need waterproof concrete. However, cleaning/maintenance crews for the Sun Devils and Cardinals hosed down the seats after every game, introducing substantially more water to the stadium than the designers had envisioned.
I live 7 miles from University of State Farm Stadium. None of the recent Fiesta Bowls have made me really want to go.When I was there in 2003 I thought that Sun Devil Stadium was beautiful.
I do like the renovated Sun Devil Stadium ~53,000 seats.
When I was there in 2003 I thought that Sun Devil Stadium was beautiful.
Well, Utah is back in the P12CG which is good for the Buckeyes because the Utes are the easiest potential CFP semi-final match-up.
so much for leaning towards the better defensive teamI think that lean is apt in most cases, but not every of course. I too favored Utah in large part because of defense. Oregon had a nice offensive game plan, and executed.
so much for leaning towards the better defensive team
I love when people treat a sample size of one like it negates a larger trend/point/fact.Is it merely a sample size of one or is it contrary evidence that some people choose to disregard because it contradicts their pet theory?
.
That was the Oregon team most people were expecting when the season started. Good for them.
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/rankings.aspxBecause SEC.
I am a huge Burrow fan and have been since he was recruited. That said, the narratives just make me smile.
Ohio State could very well go down in flames today- they are playing a damn good team that is rock solid on BOTH offense and defense.
But the chatter on game day, that it is a given that LSU has a more impressive resume than OHio State right now. Why? They beat #9, 11, and 12. Ohio State beat 8, 10, 14 and 20. And all three of their non conference opponents are playing for a conference championship today.
I'm not sure the placement is irrelevant. OU is clearly the team that you want to draw.Yes, that part if important, I agree. One might even argue getting Clemson is a positive as well, I'm not convinced of that.
Is it merely a sample size of one or is it contrary evidence that some people choose to disregard because it contradicts their pet theory?A sample size of 1 is a sample size of 1. If it meshes with the larger preponderance of evidence, it's an outcome that was most likely. When it doesn't mesh with the evidence, it was unlikely. It happened, and it will continue to happen some of the time, but until there's a tipping point, it's still an unlikely outcome.
Wouldn't you be citing it as evidence of the "betterness" of defense if Utah had won?
As many here have noted before, the teams with serious NC aspirations number roughly 15 preseason, and for 11 of them (about to be 14) this year will be something of a disappointment. Georgia is an extant example, thought to have had an NFL offensive line (maybe for the Bengals), an experienced QB, and great defense and ST. Their season was marred by a home loss to USCe and then a blow out to LSU last night. "Marred" is putting it nicely. So, maybe they play UVA in the OB, yay. Win or lose, it doesn't change much, though a loss would make the year almost calamitous. In "the old days", they would have finished 11-1, perhaps 12-1 with a major bowl win and a top 5 rankings, which is something of a solace, though it would have really put a bad taste about the USCe loss. They seem locked in the bride's maid category.You just described the Wisconsin Badgers.
You just described the Wisconsin Badgers.Or the 'other' 13 teams of the Big Ten....
OSU has played in the CCG 5 times, and is 4-1. Bride.Another way UW and UGA are similar - the Bulldogs are the only SEC team with a losing record in the SEC CG with more than 5 appearances.
UW has played in the CCG 6 times, and is 2-6. Bridesmaid.
It's that SEC speed.....wait...
OSU hasn't fared very well against Clemson over the years. (putting it mildly)
OSU's defense is as good as its been since 2002. Probably better.continued from last page...
not according to afroYeah, I know OAM places a very high regard on polls and pollsters and thinks they are inerrant in their ability to line up teams by number of losses.
Final CFP Rankings:
1 LSU.....................SEC Champ
2 Ohio St.................B10 Champ
3 Clemson................ACC Champ
4 Oklahoma..............XII Champ
5 Georgia
6 Oregon..................PAC Champ
7 Baylor
8 Wisconsin
9 Florida
10 Penn St
11 Utah
12 Auburn
13 Alabama
14 Michigan
15 ND
16 Iowa
17 Memphis...............AAC Champ
18 Minnesota
19 Boise St
20 App St
21 Cinci
22 USC
23 Navy
24 Virginia
25 Okie St
I get not penalizing CCG losers too harshly, but the committee acted like they didn't even happen.Yeah, Wisconsin played creditably, as did Baylor, and Utah. Georgia did not. I don't get it either.