CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on October 31, 2018, 12:19:44 AM

Title: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 31, 2018, 12:19:44 AM
1. Alabama 8-0
2. Clemson 8-0
3. LSU 7-1
4. Notre Dame 8-0
---------------------------------
5. Michigan 7-1
6. Georgia 7-1
7. Oklahoma 7-1
8. Washington State 7-1
9. Kentucky 7-1
10. Ohio State 7-1
11. Florida 6-2
12. UCF 7-0
13. West Virginia 6-1
14. Penn State 6-2
15. Utah 6-2
16. Iowa 6-2
17. Texas 6-2
18. Miss State 5-3
19. Syracuse 6-2
20. Texas A&M 5-3
21. NC State 5-2
22. Boston College 6-2
23. Fresno State 7-1
24. Iowa State 4-3
25. Virginia 6-2
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Hawkinole on October 31, 2018, 02:07:08 AM
LSU's inclusion over Michigan seems ridiculous, to me. It doesn't matter this early. But politics matter, even in football.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Kris60 on October 31, 2018, 05:22:31 AM
LSU's inclusion over Michigan seems ridiculous, to me. It doesn't matter this early. But politics matter, even in football.
LSU has wins right now over 5 teams with winning records, including a top 10 win over UGA.  Not sure why that seems ridiculous.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Kris60 on October 31, 2018, 05:26:03 AM
The committee and I had the exact same top 11 and pretty much had the same top 20. They had UCF at 12 and I had WVU at 12.  I don’t agree but I’m not surprised.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Temp430 on October 31, 2018, 07:02:45 AM
It's early.  I'm fine with LSU at #3 at this point.    LSU and Michigan both have some big hurdles to get over before even starting to think about the CFP.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: fezzador on October 31, 2018, 08:15:52 AM
Still lots of football to be played.  Right now, I think this is correct.  But what if LSU wins out?  Does Bama still get the same benefit of the doubt, even if Clemson finishes 11-1 (or better), Notre Dame wins out, and Michigan wins out?  Would a 1-loss non-SEC champ Bama get in over a P5 1-loss champ based on the eye test?

Of course that's probably not going to happen, but it's still something to think about.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on October 31, 2018, 08:53:45 AM
An 11-1 SEC nonchampion might get in if the alternatives have 2 losses.  That has been established.

Alabama does not have a very good OOC slate this year.  It wasn't terrific last year either though.

Should a program's performance in previous playoffs impact rankings of THIS year's team?  I'd say no, but ...

The LSU thing will sort itself out pretty soon.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on October 31, 2018, 09:30:59 AM
I'd also not that this poll is really only notable in giving us a bit of insight into how the Committee is thinking about things.  The actual ranking is obviously going to change dramatically over time, even after this weekend.

I see, again, that a bad loss is, well "bad".

Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on October 31, 2018, 09:31:43 AM
I also think WVU is the lowest ranked team "with a shot".  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on October 31, 2018, 09:49:13 AM
I'd also not that this poll is really only notable in giving us a bit of insight into how the Committee is thinking about things.  The 
they've shown in the past that the insight one week doesn't mean much in the final poll
of course this is a new committee, so we won't know if they act the same as previous committees
bottom-line is that this first poll is meaningless
ranking 20-25 is even more meaningless
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Drew4UTk on October 31, 2018, 09:52:06 AM
i get twisted myself when arranging things... it is a dead split between 'where i think they are' and 'where i think they'll finish' even in the stupid 'featured' article on the publisher... btw- i do those things (articles) in sole attempt to make the site an original publisher... if'n y'all want to present articles, by all means have at it... I'll publish them for you... 

anyway, back on topic.. 

BLUF: A lot can still happen. 

though Bama doesn't have the backing this season in terms of W/L of ranked teams with winning records, does anyone believe they aren't the act to beat?  this is the eye test- but it has to be at least equally the past several seasons too... 

likewise, Clemson is the closest to Bama in recent pedigree... aren't they?  it's kinda their's to lose, and there is no way this isn't based off of past season's contemplated while weighing.  everyone is high on them, but i see a team with lack of focus.  they want the big games, but don't often bring it on the lessor games.  this usually catches a team, and i think it will this season for clemson. 

except for a loss, LSU has THIS season's most impressive results insofar as winning over ranked opponents.  this will change soon enough. 

ND is the ultimate helmet school (results from former thread notwithstanding) benefiting from lackluster schedule and big contracts, and interest across the nation (not 'just' bound by region).  They 'did' beat UM- but anyone who watches this sport realizes UM has matured tremendously since, no?  Well, that argument can be partially applied to LSU too... And then there is UGA, who lost to LSU but hasn't truly struggled with anyone else who has argument to this position as well, rightfully so.  

LSU will lose, and either UGA or UK will lose, and either UGA/UK or Bama will lose, and the SEC equation will work itself out.  It's my opinion that the committee will do what they need to in effort to keep re-matches out- which puts either UM or ND at a disadvantage and opens the door for OU, Wazu, UCF, or WVU- which is something they would want as it rebounds the western sector of the country's interest.  

cliff notes: a lot could happen. :93:
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on October 31, 2018, 10:06:27 AM
For OSU/Michigan fans, the hope is:

1.  Winning out of course.
2.  ND slipping up at NW or with Syracuse/USC (possible)
3.  Alabama winning out (this may have implications in the actual playoff of course)
4.  Oklahoma losing another

I think then we get 1. Bama 2. Clemson 3. OSU/UM  4.  Who knows ... 

But the variations are so numerous at this point ....

I do think this affords a bit of insight into how the committee ranks teams.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on October 31, 2018, 10:21:02 AM
If Bama loses to LSU and finishes 11-1 it will certainly create an interesting test of "eye test" vs SoS.  

Bama's OOC is flat out abysmal.  Their "marquee" OOC opponent was a Louisville team which is 0-5 in a weak ACC and 2-6 overall.  Their other three OOC opponents are an FCS team, a bad Sun Belt team, and a mediocre Sun Belt team.  Their two SEC-E opponents (TN and Mizzou) are a combined 1-8 in the SEC and 7-9 overall.  That isn't just bad, it is awful.  

Thus, Bama's only legitimate opponents will be their SEC-W brethren and (if they get there), their SECCG and post-season opponents.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on October 31, 2018, 10:40:04 AM
I think their only shot is losing a very close game in the CG and having plausible alternatives having 2 losses.

This presumes they lose one game and don't with the SEC of course.  If they are 12-1 and win the SEC, it's moot.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Mdot21 on October 31, 2018, 10:49:51 AM
SEC needs to go to a 9 game schedule and stop playing FCS teams.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Entropy on October 31, 2018, 10:51:02 AM
SEC needs to go to a 9 game schedule and stop playing FCS teams.
or the BIG needs to do the same...  At some point, you're hurting yourself.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on October 31, 2018, 11:03:21 AM
SEC needs to go to a 9 game schedule and stop playing FCS teams.
yes, because this above is NOT going to happen
why would they change when they can pile up winning percentage, more home games, and guarantee at least one BCS playoff team and sometimes two?
it's a proven model to huge $$$
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on October 31, 2018, 12:03:52 PM
The SEC may "need" 8 conference games, but it won't happen, so it pointless to say they "need" something.  What they "need" is money and that drives what they do.  I might LIKE for something to happen, but that's not the same as saying someone NEEDS to do something.

I think the "real ranking" here is only teams with a legit shot, not teams with 2 losses barring a real breakdown.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on October 31, 2018, 12:22:17 PM
if the SEC network doesn't force better content for better ratings, then it will not happen

I think the BTN pushed Delaney into 9 conference games
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on October 31, 2018, 01:32:44 PM
I don't see a 9 game slate as likely in the SEC or ACC.  We can wish for it, and other things, but it isn't likely.

My own "wish" would be for a P5 requirement, if you will, to play ten P5 teams a year, however devised.  Vandy would be in demand.

Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Drew4UTk on October 31, 2018, 02:02:14 PM
y'all mighty worried about the SEC it appears... the SEC will work it's way out, but it WILL deliver a prospect to the tourney... so- hope they lose?  

y'all can say what you will, and much of it is solid argument, but the SEC enjoys a lot of credit in development and advancement in this game- and if you want to split hairs it's Tom Osborne's fault damn near exclusively in my opinion.  because of SEC dominance, early in the century, the rest of the CFB world had to alter their way of doing business- and from it you get ridiculous speed in spreads from Ohio State, high pressure D's in PSU, lean-on-you-for-four-quarters-threatening-TD-play-every-down from the likes of Wiscy, ect...  There was a brief moment the SEC had the greatest collection of top tier coaches ever assembled in one conference, and it showed... those coaches and the minions of those coaches are spreading, and along with it threats of encroachment if not out right challenging the throne... Remove Bama, or make them a middle of the pack team, and the SEC isn't hardly anything more than a BigXII or PAC....

^but ALL of that is leaning on tradition, and a tradition which is written by the victor- and has little to do with the current landscape other than folks can't let it go.  again I say, the SEC will work itself out and possibly out of the national picture......... consider the possibility Bama loses to Auburn after beating LSU, and UGA beats UK but loses to GT before beating Bama- poof- the SEC ain't got a grain of sand to stand on that won't roll out from underneath them, and tOSU, PSU, WVU, Okey, or even UCF are in.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on October 31, 2018, 02:05:48 PM
poppycock

the SEC will have a player in the tourney of four
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Drew4UTk on October 31, 2018, 02:08:07 PM
yup.... but the 'fact' is a 'fact' of odds.... there is a greater chance they will than there is they won't, but that is only a certainty, not a mathematical one. 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on October 31, 2018, 02:10:16 PM
I agree, but the odds are in their favor when they are the only conference possible of getting a 2-loss team in the tourney
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Roaddawg on October 31, 2018, 02:32:48 PM
No surprise with this ranking, it's early and a lot will change in the next few weeks of November.  ESecPN has the usual SEC loaded rankings early, to keep a few teams in the Big Picture.  What will be fun to watch is when they have to start kissing Jimmy Football's butt when M climbs into the Top 4.  After all the years of slamming him on the sidelines, they will have to show some love, and with his wonderful media personality, it could get interesting. 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 31, 2018, 02:46:48 PM
1. Alabama 8-0
2. Clemson 8-0
3. LSU 7-1
4. Notre Dame 8-0

Sub Michigan for Clemson and Georgia for Notre Dame and I'm good.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on October 31, 2018, 03:12:53 PM
Bama is a 2 TD favorite over the #3 ranked team ON THE ROAD, in Baton Rouge, at night.

I don't recall a year since maybe 1995 when #1 was so heavily favored over the field.

Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: fezzador on October 31, 2018, 03:34:42 PM
I think a lot of folks are surprised the line isn't higher, like 17 or 18 points.

LSU has the defense to slow Bama down, but they still don't have enough of an offense to be a real threat.  Bama will probably score in the high 20s to mid 30s, and LSU probably won't score much more than 17 or so.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: MarqHusker on October 31, 2018, 03:59:04 PM
Bama is a 2 TD favorite over the #3 ranked team ON THE ROAD, in Baton Rouge, at night.

I don't recall a year since maybe 1995 when #1 was so heavily favored over the field.


For some context
Nebraska in 1995 was -23 vs #8 KSU in Lincoln (covered),  -8 at #7 Colorado in Boulder (covered), and -25 at #10 Kansas in Lawrence (covered).    The #1 v #2 Fiesta vs Florida, Nebraska was a 3 point favorite (covered).
Nebraska was 10-2 ATS in '95, was -52 vs Pacific (won 49-7) and was -28 vs Wazzu (won 35-21).   
Covered: -28 at Okie St, -18 at Mich St, -27 ASU, -42 Mizz, -42 Iowa St, -34 OU.
#1/#2 Florida State by the way was a 17 1/2 point favorite over #1 in one poll, #2 in the other poll Nebraska team in the '94 Orange Bowl.   FSU won 18-16.
In reviewing Bama's Saban run,   their biggest number in a top top matchup is -9 vs ND in the Orange Bowl.   Obviously Bama's offense hadn't been what it is today.
Peak Pete Carroll wasn't seeing a number like this either. 
Florida got to see some low double digit #s in big games, including +10 vs Bama in SECCCG.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Mdot21 on October 31, 2018, 04:44:25 PM
Sub Michigan for Clemson and Georgia for Notre Dame and I'm good.
Nah. Clemson deserves to be at 2. I'd have ND at 3. Not sold on Georgia just yet. I'm fine with Michigan at 5. They have to keep earning it. My top 4 would be...

1) Bama
2) Clemson
3) ND
4) LSU
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: fezzador on October 31, 2018, 05:01:28 PM
Michigan fans should probably root for Bama this weekend, as a one-loss Bama won't get knocked out but a two-loss LSU likely will
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on October 31, 2018, 05:28:50 PM
A two loss team is out barring mayhem (which could get fun).  I know Auburn would have made it last year but that was with two close losses to very good teams and 3 top level wins.

Maybe a 2 loss team makes it in one year in 8, maybe.

Alabama is favored over LSU more than UGA is favored over UK.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Honestbuckeye on October 31, 2018, 05:55:28 PM
So try this: Michigan wins out including CCG

Oklahoma wins out including CCG
Clemson wins out including CCG
Notre Dame wins out
WSU wins out including CCG
LSU or Georgia beats Bama, so Bama is a 1 loss non Conference champion.

Who gets in?  ( not who should, who does)

Based on how completely inconsistent the committee has been, my prediction:
Clemson
ND
SEC 1 loss champ( Georgia or LSU)
Bama.  

Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: MrNubbz on October 31, 2018, 06:24:04 PM
Depends I guess how bad Bama losses by.At this point I guess anyone in the BIG are Tide fans to avoid precisely that
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on October 31, 2018, 06:45:51 PM
If UGA edged Bama say 27-24, Bama might get the nod, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 31, 2018, 07:03:43 PM
The playoff is so young, we're still not entirely used to the late-season dynamic of it.  We're used to WHEN you lose mattering A LOT, but in the playoff era, it barely matters, if at all.

That's what keeps a 12-0 Bama who loses in the SECCG (then 12-1) confidently in the fold.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 31, 2018, 07:05:20 PM
If Bama loses to LSU and finishes 11-1 it will certainly create an interesting test of "eye test" vs SoS.  

Bama's OOC is flat out abysmal.  Their "marquee" OOC opponent was a Louisville team which is 0-5 in a weak ACC and 2-6 overall.  Their other three OOC opponents are an FCS team, a bad Sun Belt team, and a mediocre Sun Belt team.  Their two SEC-E opponents (TN and Mizzou) are a combined 1-8 in the SEC and 7-9 overall.  That isn't just bad, it is awful.  

Thus, Bama's only legitimate opponents will be their SEC-W brethren and (if they get there), their SECCG and post-season opponents.  
Bama isn't under the same 'scrutiny umbrella' as everyone else.  They win the eye test in spades, and that matters (fair or unfair).  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 31, 2018, 07:06:17 PM
SEC needs to go to a 9 game schedule and stop playing FCS teams.
I keep seeing this, but have yet to get a valid 'why'.  There is no motivation for the SEC to do this, so why would they?
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 31, 2018, 07:13:27 PM
Bama is a 2 TD favorite over the #3 ranked team ON THE ROAD, in Baton Rouge, at night.

I don't recall a year since maybe 1995 when #1 was so heavily favored over the field.


Nebraska was only a 3.5 point favorite vs Florida in the Fiesta Bowl.  I doubt anyone would be set within 8-9 pts vs Alabama at a neutral site right now.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 31, 2018, 07:15:36 PM
As for the potential who's in, who's out of the top teams, the Irish better not lose a game.  They're out if they do.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Mdot21 on October 31, 2018, 08:09:06 PM
So try this: Michigan wins out including CCG

Oklahoma wins out including CCG
Clemson wins out including CCG
Notre Dame wins out
WSU wins out including CCG
LSU or Georgia beats Bama, so Bama is a 1 loss non Conference champion.

Who gets in?  ( not who should, who does)

Based on how completely inconsistent the committee has been, my prediction:
Clemson
ND
SEC 1 loss champ( Georgia or LSU)
Bama.  
Saw someone talk about this on tv. Forget the dudes name. 
Basically said that if Bama were to lose vs LSU and not make the SEC CG that they’d be out. They’d have zero quality wins on that resume and other 1 loss or no loss teams would be more deserving.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 31, 2018, 08:29:21 PM

The Dude... we're Bama tiebreaker seems to work out for them, more often than not. 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 31, 2018, 08:53:44 PM
Saw someone talk about this on tv. Forget the dudes name.
Basically said that if Bama were to lose vs LSU and not make the SEC CG that they’d be out. They’d have zero quality wins on that resume and other 1 loss or no loss teams would be more deserving.

I'll quote William Munny, from Unforgiven:  "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."
Alabama's resume is but a small part of its appeal to the committee.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Honestbuckeye on October 31, 2018, 08:57:04 PM
I'll quote William Munny, from Unforgiven:  "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."
Alabama's resume is but a small part of its appeal to the committee.  
Great quote, one of my favs!   Plus, you are right on the money. 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Kris60 on October 31, 2018, 09:46:59 PM
Saw someone talk about this on tv. Forget the dudes name.
Basically said that if Bama were to lose vs LSU and not make the SEC CG that they’d be out. They’d have zero quality wins on that resume and other 1 loss or no loss teams would be more deserving.

I think I agree they wouldn’t.  The situation would be a little different than last year when Bama didn’t lose until the regular season finale.  By that time they already had a couple of ranked wins under their belt with Miss St and LSU.  At the end of the year even Fresno St cracked the top 25 for a week.  Even the win over an average FSU team was looked a little differently because Francois got hurt at the end of that game.  So I think Bama even got a little credit for beating them at full strength.
None of that would be in play this year.  Louisville flat out sucks.  They won’t get a little boost from their G5 opponents.  Auburn, Miss St, and A&M all look to finish with at least 4 losses, if not more.  If Bama loses to LSU they don’t have a lot going for them resume wise.
I think it will be a moot point because I fully expect Bama to handle LSU but if they would lose they might be in trouble.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: utee94 on November 01, 2018, 12:21:45 AM
Surely nobody around here is suggesting helmet bias might help a team get into the CFP?
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2018, 07:23:22 AM
I don't think the committee has a heavy bias to Alabama.  The only "example" where that could have happened was last season but the alternatives all had two losses (other than UCF).  That is simply a one loss team over two loss teams.

A one loss non-conference champ won't get in over a one loss conference champ unless something REALLY weird is afoot.  And it isn't this year.  Bama has a weak OOC slate and the rest of the SEC West has faded some other than LSU.  The SEC East MIGHT (arguably) be a better division right now, and Bama faced two of their weaker opponents.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: TyphonInc on November 01, 2018, 08:49:31 AM
SEC needs to go to a 9 game schedule and stop playing FCS teams.
Every non-SEC fan thinks this. But their formula works for them to the tune of getting half the playoff bids.
I know this will piss OAM on some fundamental level (for being lazy)
But it would appear to me that the committee so far has the final ranking look like this:
1) Zero loss, P5 Champ (2014 FSU, 2015 Clemson, 2016 'bama)
2) Zero loss, non-champ (potential ND)
3) One loss, P5 Champ (All other participants)
4) One loss, P5 non-champ (2016 OSU, 2017 'bama)
In '16, and '17 the other P5 Champs all had a second blemish allowing for a non-champ to make the playoff. And if I'm not wrong it hasn't gone past this.
If there are NO upsets the final rankings will be:
1) Alabama
2) Clemson
3) Notre Dame
4) WSU, OKlahoma/WVU, OSU/M*ch beauty contest Winner

LSU/Kentucky/Georgia can win their way in by beating 'bama. And even with a loss Alabama can keep the streak alive if Pac, Big's have a conference champ who stubs their toe again.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2018, 09:14:27 AM
The SEC has gotten two teams in exactly once, where the alternatives had two losses.  That hardly is a trend, and of course this early in the experiment trends are dubious anyway.

Those two SEC teams did make the final CG of course.

This apparent "SEC loathing" and hyperbole is rather interesting, to me.  I also think emotions interfere with analysis.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 01, 2018, 09:48:54 AM
"SEC loathing" <==== hyperbole
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 01, 2018, 10:05:37 AM
As for the potential who's in, who's out of the top teams, the Irish better not lose a game.  They're out if they do.
They are screwed if they lose a game.  They are a lock at 12-0 but at 11-1 they would probably be behind all of the following:

In other words 11-1 Notre Dame has almost no chance.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2018, 10:11:33 AM
this is ed zachery why the Committee (ESPN) announces a poll this early in the season
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2018, 10:12:31 AM

In other words 11-1 Notre Dame has almost no chance.  
but, there's a chance
and they have a very shiny helmet
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2018, 10:13:37 AM
ND's schedule is often full of Big Names of course, but this year many of thise BNs fell rather flat.  On the other hand, NW and Syracuse are playing "above their station".  And the weak wins over Vandy and Pitt tarnish their patina.

11-1 with a loss to say NW won't look good at all.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2018, 10:15:47 AM
how about a 1 point loss to  USC on the last play of the game hail mary lob pass?
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 01, 2018, 10:25:08 AM
how about a 1 point loss to  USC on the last play of the game hail mary lob pass?
The Bush Push. 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Entropy on November 01, 2018, 10:27:02 AM
how about a 1 point loss to  USC on the last play of the game hail mary lob pass?
depends upon how ESPN spins it..   I'm not being snarky.  They still influence perception.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2018, 10:31:05 AM
Ed Zachery

Ratings would be much better for Notre Dame, than most any other contender for that 4th slot
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2018, 10:35:12 AM
Most fans think ESPN has significant influence over the Committee.  I don't, at all.  I don't even think Helmet has that much influence, maybe a little.  The criteria are pretty clear, win a P5 conference with 1 or fewer losses and you are in barring a strange year.

Lose two and you'd better have decent losses and some great wins to offset coupled with no options that are all that great.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 01, 2018, 10:42:03 AM
I keep seeing this, but have yet to get a valid 'why'.  There is no motivation for the SEC to do this, so why would they?
I agree with you and I'll add that Florida was an early adopter of the weak game before rivalry weekend scheduling model.  I think they figured out that it was a virtual necessity once the SEC adopted a CG because otherwise they needed to win back-to-back-to-back-to-back games against high-level opposition.  Florida NEVER managed to accomplish that and I think that is not a knock on the Gators it is simply that it is REALLY difficult.  
From the beginning of the SECCG era in 1992 through 2005 the Gators played either Vandy or USCe in their last regular season SEC game (right before FSU).  Then in 2005 they lost to USCe and since then their opponent the weak before FSU has been either an FCS team or a bad FBS team with the exception of 2016 when LSU was rescheduled to that week.  
Now that we all have CG's and a playoff if you have a tough rivalry game to end the season as many teams do you are faced with the prospect of likely needing to do what Florida could never accomplish and win four straight high-level games.  In the CFP era no team has accomplished that:

I'm sure that eventually some team will manage to achieve four straight high-level wins to end the season as National Champions but it hasn't happened yet.  Asking a team to achieve five straight is even more ridiculous and that is why it makes sense for the SEC powers to play the little sisters of the poor the week prior to rivalry weekend.  

This is why I am so unhappy about the insanity of some of Ohio State's future schedules:

Imagine if 2025 ends up as a year in which tOSU is a NC Contender.  The Buckeye's last six games would be:
Seriously?  Who thought this was a good idea?  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 01, 2018, 11:07:13 AM
Yeah, the Sec has a lot of teams that are not only willing to maintain a big out of Conference rivalry, but they are also willing to play those games on rivalry week. 

Some do a bye week AND an an FCS tune u[ before Rivalry Week. 

If they moved to nine Conference games then we might lose Georgia-Georgia Tech, Florida-Florida St, USCe-Clemson, Kentucky-Louisville, etc. 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2018, 11:19:25 AM
A fair number of usually younger Dawg fans want to drop the series with Tech.  They like playing programs like ND and UCLA etc.  Tech is a quirky offense that can beat you with much less talent, or if not, hurt some of your players.  Beating them gets you nothing.

Frankly, I would prefer playing a ND and a Arizona State in a season, home and away, or at least playing someone in a one and done plus another P5 somewhere.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: rolltidefan on November 01, 2018, 11:26:08 AM

"SEC loathing" <==== hyperbole

to be fair, this same conversation has been going on since i joined, about 15 years ago now (has it really been that long?).

as for the vegas line for bama/lsu, on radio they said this is only 2nd time a team has been a double digit favorite over a top 5 team (might be road games only, can't remember). the other one? bama/au 2013, kick6 game. bama was a 10.5 fav for that game.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: bayareabadger on November 01, 2018, 12:23:23 PM
The Dude... we're Bama tiebreaker seems to work out for them, more often than not.
I’ll be honest, it happened what? Once? In 11? 
Last year they edged UW and UCF, which isn’t a hill I’ll die on. Unless we’re talking about them going over 2-loss conference champs, in which case, we’ve seen a 1-loss team go ahead of it’s own division champ that won the title game before Bama pulled that in the CFP era. 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2018, 12:51:35 PM
to be fair, this same conversation has been going on since i joined, about 15 years ago now (has it really been that long?).

as for the vegas line for bama/lsu, on radio they said this is only 2nd time a team has been a double digit favorite over a top 5 team (might be road games only, can't remember). the other one? bama/au 2013, kick6 game. bama was a 10.5 fav for that game.
1994 Orange Bowl - #2 Huskers were 17.5 point dogs to #1 FSU
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: utee94 on November 01, 2018, 01:42:17 PM
Yeah, the Sec has a lot of teams that are not only willing to maintain a big out of Conference rivalry, but they are also willing to play those games on rivalry week.

Some do a bye week AND an an FCS tune u[ before Rivalry Week.

If they moved to nine Conference games then we might lose Georgia-Georgia Tech, Florida-Florida St, USCe-Clemson, Kentucky-Louisville, etc.
I hear you, but USC plays Notre Dame every year and also plays 9 conference games.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 01, 2018, 01:50:50 PM
I don’t think ND’s helmet matters in the slightest.  Right now, only Alabama’s does, but for a reason.  I believe the committee will favor the more talented team when faced with a tough decision.  That may often be the helmet team, but not always, season to season.  
Bama’s helmet matters now because it’s the most talented team by far.  I think talent perception is why Baylor/TCU were left out that one year.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2018, 01:57:47 PM
Ohio State this year played TCU and Oregon State, both P5 teams AND 9 conference opponents, of course.  That is good scheduling in my book even if OSU Lite was especially lite this year.

Just play ten P5 level teams, any fewer is not good scheduling in my book.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2018, 02:00:49 PM
I hear you, but USC plays Notre Dame every year and also plays 9 conference games.  
and look at how many playoffs they've been invited to since this happened
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 01, 2018, 02:09:20 PM
I hear you, but USC plays Notre Dame every year and also plays 9 conference games.  
And Texas doesn't play aTm every year, while playing 9 Conference games. 
Nebraska-Oklahoma? Gone. 
9 Conference games seems to discourage schools from maintaining an out of Conference rivalry a LOT more often then not. 
There are a few exceptions such as USC and Utah playing Notre Dame and BYU respectively. But those teams are also out west where there aren't really a lot of major teams nearby for them to be playing instead. 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Kris60 on November 01, 2018, 02:33:27 PM
I don’t think ND’s helmet matters in the slightest.  Right now, only Alabama’s does, but for a reason.  I believe the committee will favor the more talented team when faced with a tough decision.  That may often be the helmet team, but not always, season to season.  
Bama’s helmet matters now because it’s the most talented team by far.  I think talent perception is why Baylor/TCU were left out that one year.
This has been discussed on here a lot lately but Ohio St had a lot more going for them than just being Ohio St.  More ranked wins. Better SOS. 13 games compared to 12.  Indiana would have had a case with that resume.
The more I think about it I really think if LSU were to beat Bama and run the table to the SECCG then Bama might be done in regards to the playoffs,  even at 11-1.   I think the people sitting in that committee room would feel really queasy about putting Bama in there two years in a row without so much as making their CCG with an even weaker resume this year than last.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 01, 2018, 02:39:59 PM
It is kind of funny that some of the more controversial selections have gone onto win the whole thing. 

OSU in '14, Bama last year, as well as the year when they had a rematch with LSU... 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 01, 2018, 02:41:45 PM
I hear you, but USC plays Notre Dame every year and also plays 9 conference games.  
And year-ending rival UCLA has (b)ruined 2 NC opportunities for the Trojans in the last 20 years.  
Again, yes, the SEC going to 9 would be cool and uniform, but what real motive is there?
Do I want to add Auburn before FSU, Atlanta, and bowl?
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 01, 2018, 02:43:39 PM
This has been discussed on here a lot lately but Ohio St had a lot more going for them than just being Ohio St.  More ranked wins. Better SOS. 13 games compared to 12.  Indiana would have had a case with that resume.
The more I think about it I really think if LSU were to beat Bama and run the table to the SECCG then Bama might be done in regards to the playoffs,  even at 11-1.   I think the people sitting in that committee room would feel really queasy about putting Bama in there two years in a row without so much as making their CCG with an even weaker resume this year than last.
But again, you’re focused on resume and the committee may be more enamored with all-time talent.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2018, 03:35:24 PM
If LSU wins out, Alabama is in trouble UNLESS the other candidates have 2 losses.  One loss is better than two losses, apparently, unless the two losses are respectable and offset by 3-4 really good wins.

An interesting situation that has happened is a team starts out slowly and drops two games but makes a strong finish to go 11-2 blowing everyone out.  Do the early losses count less than later losses?  Do you rank the team based on end of the year status or overall performance?

Might be the best team in the country end of the year, but ...
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: rolltidefan on November 01, 2018, 04:34:53 PM
1994 Orange Bowl - #2 Huskers were 17.5 point dogs to #1 FSU
must have been road games. or maybe they were just wrong.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: bamajoe on November 01, 2018, 04:39:01 PM
Alabama, Alabama, Alabama. The team you should be upset about is Notre Dame and not Alabama. Notre Dame played one team with a pulse, Michigan, and lucked out at home because it was Michigan's first game. They have narrow wins against Vanderbilt, Ball State and Pitt. Those games should be looked at objectively and they should not get a pass because they eked by three dregs. Alabama beats those types of teams by 50 points.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 01, 2018, 04:49:38 PM
Ohio State this year played TCU and Oregon State, both P5 teams AND 9 conference opponents, of course.  That is good scheduling in my book even if OSU Lite was especially lite this year.

Just play ten P5 level teams, any fewer is not good scheduling in my book.
Well Ohio State's schedule was a lot harder in theory than it was in practice.  It sounds great to play two P5 teams OOC and even better when one of them has been a contender in the B12 most years of late.  Then TCU tanked.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2018, 04:50:16 PM
must have been road games. or maybe they were just wrong.
maybe they only went back 20 years?
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 01, 2018, 04:50:42 PM
And Texas doesn't play aTm every year, while playing 9 Conference games.
Nebraska-Oklahoma? Gone.
9 Conference games seems to discourage schools from maintaining an out of Conference rivalry a LOT more often then not.
There are a few exceptions such as USC and Utah playing Notre Dame and BYU respectively. But those teams are also out west where there aren't really a lot of major teams nearby for them to be playing instead.
The other thing about Pac teams is that unlike the heavyweights in the B1G and SEC, they can't fill up 100k stadiums for games against pastries.  If they want to sell tickets they HAVE to schedule legitimate opponents.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2018, 04:52:46 PM

Nebraska-Oklahoma? Gone.
2021 and 2022
2029 and 2030
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: utee94 on November 01, 2018, 04:56:08 PM
And Texas doesn't play aTm every year, while playing 9 Conference games.
Nebraska-Oklahoma? Gone.
9 Conference games seems to discourage schools from maintaining an out of Conference rivalry a LOT more often then not.
There are a few exceptions such as USC and Utah playing Notre Dame and BYU respectively. But those teams are also out west where there aren't really a lot of major teams nearby for them to be playing instead.
I'm just pointing out that it CAN happen because it DOES happen.
And I also think there's a difference between the TX/A&M and NU/OU situations where previously in-conference rivals left, vs. what would happen in the SEC, where they'd simply remove one of the 4 OOC slots and replace it with an in-conference game.  
But that's splitting hairs, overall I agree that if for some reason the SEC decided to insist on 9 conference games, then that would place a lot of pressure on those existing OOC rivalry games, and I'd expect at least some of them would be killed off.
And all of THAT is academic, because I don't foresee any situation where the SEC would insist on that, because the status quo is working extremely well for them. Nor am I one of the people that believe all conferences and conference championships should be uniform.  This isn't the NFL Lite and I pray it never becomes so.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: utee94 on November 01, 2018, 04:57:04 PM
2021 and 2022
2029 ans 2030
That's not an annual OOC rivalry and you know it.  However, that might be more meetings in a 10-year period than the two teams ever had in the B12. :)
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2018, 04:59:08 PM
it's not annual, but it's not "Gone" either

9 conference games doesn't mean ya can't schedule some heavy hitters for the fans and the networks
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: utee94 on November 01, 2018, 05:02:56 PM
it's not annual, but it's not "Gone" either

9 conference games doesn't mean ya can't schedule some heavy hitters for the fans and the networks
I don't think that's the issue. For example, Texas currently has scheduled in the current and upcoming ten years of OOC: USC, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan, and Alabama.
It's not a question of not wanting to play a heavyweight OOC, but rather the issue is that with 9 conference games, and only 3 OOC games, tying up one of your precious OOC slots with the same team every year becomes more problematic, especially when that one team is a regional rival,  in an era where teams are striving toward having more national exposure.
 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2018, 05:09:13 PM
I'm just saying, Bammer, Auburn, and the other SEC programs could easily go to 9 conference games and still play another heavy hitter.

Other programs in the Big 10, Big 12, and Pac 12 do it.  But, they choose not to.

I'm not blaming those SEC programs or the SEC commish.  They seem to be doing alright.

If the B!G and PAC don't like the unequal playing field they can easily level it up.

It would be nice if the committee rewarded SOS enough to make it matter.  But, that's not the case.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2018, 05:15:20 PM
I think if UGA was faced with 9 conference games, I think they'd have to drop Georgia Tech.  As it is now, they have years with only 6 home games in Athens (because of the WLOCP).  The AD wants to play other P5 teams in addition to Tech, as it stands.  Losing one of the two remaining games against pastries would be difficult.

I have drifted into the group in favor of dropping Tech as an annual series.  Kobayashi Maru.

Gesundheit.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: utee94 on November 01, 2018, 05:21:08 PM
I think if UGA was faced with 9 conference games, I think they'd have to drop Georgia Tech.  As it is now, they have years with only 6 home games in Athens (because of the WLOCP).  The AD wants to play other P5 teams in addition to Tech, as it stands.  Losing one of the two remaining games against pastries would be difficult.

I have drifted into the group in favor of dropping Tech as an annual series.  Kobayashi Maru.

Gesundheit.
Weird, I'd figure you of all people would value the tradition enough to want to continue playing the annual game against GaTech.
Are you saying you'd be for dropping it IFF the SEC went to 9 conference games?  Or that you're in favor of dropping it in general?
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2018, 05:23:17 PM
If faced with 9 conference games, drop Tech.  Otherwise, fine, but schedule another P5 team OOC as well.

Play ten P5 teams each year.  The Dawgs usually do, but not this season.

I don't much like these one and done things, but I can abide them, they are kind of growing on me, a little.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: utee94 on November 01, 2018, 05:25:15 PM
If faced with 9 conference games, drop Tech.  Otherwise, fine, but schedule another P5 team OOC as well.

Play ten P5 teams each year.  The Dawgs usually do, but not this season.

I don't much like these one and done things, but I can abide them, they are kind of growing on me, a little.
I loathe one and dones, Home-and-home is so much better for the regular fans.
And ten P5 teams should be easy and pretty much expected. Texas has played 11 P5 teams the past two seasons.  If we didn't suck so much, it'd make for a lot of great football games! :)
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 01, 2018, 06:02:36 PM

Might be the best team in the country end of the year, but ...
Ugghhhh….my least-favorite phrase in college football.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 01, 2018, 06:05:47 PM
I think if UGA was faced with 9 conference games, I think they'd have to drop Georgia Tech.  As it is now, they have years with only 6 home games in Athens (because of the WLOCP).  The AD wants to play other P5 teams in addition to Tech, as it stands.  Losing one of the two remaining games against pastries would be difficult.

I have drifted into the group in favor of dropping Tech as an annual series.  Kobayashi Maru.

Gesundheit.
With 9 SEC games and uGA dropping Tech, then it would only be a matter of time before the WLOCP became home-and-home.
And then all that thar tradition would be warrrshed away.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on November 01, 2018, 10:48:59 PM
With 9 SEC games and uGA dropping Tech, then it would only be a matter of time before the WLOCP became home-and-home.
And then all that thar tradition would be warrrshed away.
I think it might depend on how the SEC (if they went to nine games) balanced the home/road games.  
In the B1G we alternate.  This year all the B1G-E teams have two home and one road game against B1G-W foes and all B1G-E teams have five total home games and four total road games.  In the B1G-W it is the opposite.  They all have two road and one home games against B1G-E foes and all B1G-W teams have four total home games and five total road games.  
If the SEC did that, it would really hurt the chances of maintaining the WLOCP because the team that gave up a home game when they only had four home games would have a really weird schedule where they alternated between:
Meanwhile the team that gave up a home game when the had five home games would have a much more reasonable situation of always having four home, four road, and one neutral site game.  

However, if the nine-game SEC schedules were set such that UF and UGA were on opposite rotations they could each always have four home, four road, and one neutral SEC games.  Then they could each keep their instate rivalry as a H&H.  
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: ELA on November 01, 2018, 10:52:55 PM
If they'd let them, Alabama would just play 9 neutral site games.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2018, 06:53:07 AM
UGA is trying to play a P5 team OOC in addition to Tech each year (not this year obviously).  Do the math.    They really would need to drop Tech to play opponents more interesting for the fans.  The fans are eager to travel, and will, obviously.

They aren't too excited about traveling to Atlanta.  Most of'em live there anyway.  The state has around 10 million residents and 6.7 million live in the greater ATL region.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: ELA on November 02, 2018, 09:50:50 AM
Eh, if MSU is only going to play one OOC P5 every year, I'd rather play Notre Dame every year than mix it up.  I'd also rather see Georgia-GT, Clemson-SC and Florida-FSU, but maybe that's quickly becoming unreasonable.  I love the non-conference protected rivalries.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 02, 2018, 10:03:41 AM
It seems odd that Georgia fans in Atlanta would object to having a game closer to home. 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 02, 2018, 10:14:31 AM

When the Utes joined the Pac 12, they canceled the BYU series for similar reasons. 

But then they thought about it the right way, and put it back on the annual. 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 02, 2018, 10:19:23 AM

Truth be told, I've always been kind of envious of fanbases that have a fixed out of Conference rival. 

Having a fixed crossover with Nebraska sort of scratched that itch, so of course that's going away soon. 
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2018, 10:28:09 AM
It seems odd that Georgia fans in Atlanta would object to having a game closer to home.
Athens is all of 70 miles distant, less for many in the metro area.  The Tech stadium is a dump (IMHO).  The campus is not very, um, inviting? 
I think every Dawg fan in existence would rather be in Athens for a game.  Or South Bend for that matter.
Add to that the fact that Tech is a 2nd or 3rd tier program with a funky offense likely to injure players and you get little credit for beating them and look really bad if you lose.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2018, 10:29:49 AM
Eh, if MSU is only going to play one OOC P5 every year, I'd rather play Notre Dame every year than mix it up.  I'd also rather see Georgia-GT, Clemson-SC and Florida-FSU, but maybe that's quickly becoming unreasonable.  I love the non-conference protected rivalries.
Tech is not in the same class as Clemson and FSU.
I am fairly confident UGA would drop Tech if the SEC went to nine.  They are a boring opponent.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 02, 2018, 06:02:21 PM
Well what's Tech's best peak the last 40 years?  I know they won a partial NC in 1990, but what's their best 3-year peak?  The NC era or maybe Joe Hamilton?  Are they that lowly in UGA's estimation?

89-91:  26-9-1
98-01:  27-9

So it's Hamilton by a nose.  And Godsey, lol.  So a hybrid/option-shotgun passing offense can work there.  Just have to get lucky on some recruits, and have an able QB....
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: utee94 on November 02, 2018, 06:04:49 PM
I think it's curious, and mildly amusing, watching various outsiders try to convince a long-time Georgia fan he should care more about GaTech.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 02, 2018, 06:40:15 PM
 Just have to get lucky on some recruits, and have an able QB....
gee, that could work anywhere with any type of offense
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: TyphonInc on November 02, 2018, 06:54:24 PM
Athens is all of 70 miles distant, less for many in the metro area.  The Tech stadium is a dump (IMHO).  The campus is not very, um, inviting?
I think every Dawg fan in existence would rather be in Athens for a game.  Or South Bend for that matter.
Add to that the fact that Tech is a 2nd or 3rd tier program with a funky offense likely to injure players and you get little credit for beating them and look really bad if you lose.
I wonder if Tech would ever allow the game to move Mercedes-Benz Stadium?
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 03, 2018, 08:04:56 AM
They might if it were played there every year, but Sanford Stadium seats about 20,000 more people than MB stadium, so I'd say no.

I have become bored with ending each season with Tech.  Play someone else and someone else as well in a season, limit it is two pastries.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 04, 2018, 10:46:29 AM
gee, that could work anywhere with any type of offense
Precisely.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 04, 2018, 10:53:09 AM
The playoff "looks to be" set right.

But a fun thing about CFB is ...
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 05, 2018, 08:24:22 AM
I think it's curious, and mildly amusing, watching various outsiders try to convince a long-time Georgia fan he should care more about GaTech.
I think we're just chatting about the pros and cons.  Tech has not always been this option team they are today of course.
Tradition is a fine thing, to me, until it ceases to be relevant.  Playing tech has more downside than upside these days.  
I can walk to the Tech "stadium" (if it hasn't fallen down this morning).  Georgia State is playing in Turner Field, now configured for football.  I guess tickets are easy to come by, wonder if anyone does any tailgating, might wonder down and check it out some day.
It was pretty neat seeing all that red at Notre Dame last year when UGA played there.  I was aiming to go, but the $700 talked me out of it.  That is some pretty good bottles of wine.  I often think about a price for a thing in terms of bottles of wine equivalents.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: ELA on November 05, 2018, 08:56:55 AM
Kind of wish we could just flex it each year to what we needed.  There are years 2 would have been enough.  This year, I kind of like a 6 team playoff.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 05, 2018, 09:00:14 AM
My recollection is there is usually a controversy only about slot 4, with 2-3 teams plausible for that slot.  We could do a 6 team playoff when "play in games where 6 plays 3 and 5 plays 4.  I doubt that is in the offing, but is the largest playoff I would personally like to see.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: ELA on November 05, 2018, 09:10:13 AM
My recollection is there is usually a controversy only about slot 4, with 2-3 teams plausible for that slot.  We could do a 6 team playoff when "play in games where 6 plays 3 and 5 plays 4.  I doubt that is in the offing, but is the largest playoff I would personally like to see.
I think there is always controversy for the last slot.  I just think where you draw the thick line fluctuates year to year.  I think this year you could draw one after the top 2, and one after the top 6.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 05, 2018, 09:18:40 AM
Kind of wish we could just flex it each year to what we needed.  There are years 2 would have been enough.  This year, I kind of like a 6 team playoff.
That's my favorite option, too. Of course, it's impractical in terms of preparing bowls that may not be used and, in some years, deliberately avoiding those games' revenue by canceling them. In a world where it is practical, though, I'd want to find a way to more objectively determine whether this is a 2- or 6-team year. A computer formula might work. Or not. Whatever it'd be, I'd want it to be validated on past seasons for a sanity check.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 05, 2018, 09:41:46 AM
I think a 2 team thing would work this year.

I don't see ND and UM as being in the same group as Bama and Clemson.  Of course, upsets can happen.  

This is my main objection to an 8 team system.  You can have a truly dominant (looking) team like Bama and they have to win three in a row, four really, over quite good teams, so their odds of winning the conference CG are say 90%, and then beating #8 is 90%, and then beating say #3 is 75% and then beating #2 is say 65%.  They are favored in each and "should win" each game individually, but not collectively.

So, you get a playoff champion.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 05, 2018, 09:48:28 AM
That's right. Playoffs don't crown the season's best team. They crown the one plinko ball that falls to the correct slot.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: ELA on November 05, 2018, 10:04:12 AM

I think a 2 team thing would work this year.
Yeah, I think 2 or 6 are better numbers this year than 4.  I think Alabama and Clemson look a full step better than everyone else; then Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia and Oklahoma all look similarish in reusme to me, and a full step ahead of anyone else.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 05, 2018, 10:21:23 AM
Folks are perhaps overlooking WVU, maybe, and Wazzu, perhaps.  Georgia to me does not look capable of hanging with Bama, so they are out barring a huge upset.  WVU is dangerous.  Michigan strikes me as a team that has stepped it up over the season as has ND, but neither look like a Clemson/Bama level team.  OSU looks "troubled" somehow.  Ou can put up numbers like last year, and allow same.

Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: ELA on November 05, 2018, 10:37:31 AM
Folks are perhaps overlooking WVU, maybe, and Wazzu, perhaps.  Georgia to me does not look capable of hanging with Bama, so they are out barring a huge upset.  WVU is dangerous.  Michigan strikes me as a team that has stepped it up over the season as has ND, but neither look like a Clemson/Bama level team.  OSU looks "troubled" somehow.  Ou can put up numbers like last year, and allow same.


WVU still plays Oklahoma once, if not twice.  If they win those, replace Oklahoma with them in my 6 team playoff.  Sorry Wazzu, Pac 12 is weak at the top this year.
If MSU keeps winning, I could get on board with an MSU-WSU Rose Bowl though!
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: MaximumSam on November 05, 2018, 10:38:48 AM
Kind of interesting to watch seeding.  Bama and Clemson have been head and shoulders better over the course of the season.  Michigan has made a big rise, but can they slip into the third spot?  They match up much better with Clemson than Alabama, so it could make a big difference.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 05, 2018, 10:40:08 AM
If the favorites play out as expected, I'm happy with the current final four grouping.  I don't really see a 5 or 6 that I think merits inclusion.

Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: MaximumSam on November 05, 2018, 11:00:00 AM
If the favorites play out as expected, I'm happy with the current final four grouping.  I don't really see a 5 or 6 that I think merits inclusion.


The biggest remaining games:
Bammer: They still have Miss. St., Auburn, and the SEC championship game against Georgia (with a sandwich game against Citadel).  Not an easy path, even if they lose once they are probably still in.  If they lose to a 1 loss Georgia, they are probably both in.
Clemson: They have BC, Duke, and South Carolina, then the ACC championship game, against, IDK, Pitt maybe?  Those are all competent teams capable of pulling an upset, though none of them are what you would call good.
Michigan: Pull Rutgers, Indiana, OSU, then the B1G championship game, probably against Northwestern.  Beating OSU on the road would be good, but probably not going to get much cache from the other games.
ND: Gets FSU, Syracuse, and USC.  Funny that Syracuse is clearly the best team on that list.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 05, 2018, 11:24:19 AM
I seem to recall MANY times that the playoffs seemed to be set right around NOW and then ....

Imagine the MAYHEM if Syracuse upends ND and BC upsets Clemson.  Then we have a completely open cast of characters, almost.

OSU might lose to MSU and then upset Michigan in C-bus.  Washington beats Wazzu and then loses in their CG.

This could be a path for UCF, maybe perhaps sorta.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 05, 2018, 12:23:19 PM
UCF's tougher games are coming up
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 05, 2018, 03:42:08 PM
Well, because I tend to enjoy entropy in football, I'm going to contemplate the following scenario:

UGA loses to Auburn and upsets Alabama.
Clemson loses to BC but wins the ACC.
ND loses to Syracuse.
OSU loses to MSU and then beats Michigan but NW beats OSU.
UDubb beats Wazzu.
WVU beats Oklahoma but loses the rematch.
UCF loses to somebody.

Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 05, 2018, 03:47:08 PM
How can OSU lose to MSU and beat MSU in the same season? 

Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 05, 2018, 03:50:36 PM
Oops, fixed it.

All those Michigan schools look alike to me.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 05, 2018, 03:55:08 PM
Well, because I tend to enjoy entropy in football, I'm going to contemplate the following scenario:

UGA loses to Auburn and upsets Alabama.
and Auburn also upsets Bammer
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 05, 2018, 05:18:36 PM
If Auburn loses to Tennessee and beats Alabama this year, something's up.  Either buy a lottery ticket or stock up your zombie apocalypse bunker....
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 06, 2018, 04:17:11 PM
OAM does not think much of Tennessee this year even after their resounding win last week over Charlotte.

I begin to think the Vols have issues with their offensive line.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Entropy on November 06, 2018, 05:00:42 PM
Well, because I tend to enjoy entropy in football, I'm going to contemplate the following scenario:

UGA loses to Auburn and upsets Alabama.
Clemson loses to BC but wins the ACC.
ND loses to Syracuse.
OSU loses to MSU and then beats Michigan but NW beats OSU.
UDubb beats Wazzu.
WVU beats Oklahoma but loses the rematch.
UCF loses to somebody.


you are welcome
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 06, 2018, 05:07:55 PM
OSU loses to MSU and then beats Michigan but NW beats OSU.
Unless Michigan loses to Rutgers or Indiana, that one can't happen. If the Buckeyes lose to the Spartans, Michigan will win the East even if they lose to OSU.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 06, 2018, 05:09:12 PM
I predict Michigan will defeat Rutgers and in fact beat the S off them.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 06, 2018, 05:22:34 PM
I predict Michigan will defeat Rutgers and in fact beat the S off them.
Is your peak entropy prediction this then?
MSU>OSU
IU>M
OSU>M
OSU>NU
Because that set is technically possible.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 06, 2018, 05:52:25 PM
Northwestern wins the CG.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 06, 2018, 06:19:43 PM
Ah, yup. Max entropy.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Entropy on November 06, 2018, 06:50:55 PM
Is your peak entropy prediction this then?
MSU>OSU
IU>M
OSU>M
OSU>NU
Because that set is technically possible.
I did not make those predictions....
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 06, 2018, 09:29:34 PM
How about NU>OSU in the CCG?
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Anonymous Coward on November 06, 2018, 10:32:54 PM
Do we want a second thread for this or just keep piling them for one?

My main take-away: holy heck imagine the all-Helmet playoff we'll have if only Clemson can lose a game and OU moves into spot #4. That'd be a dream - for some people.

College Football Playoff Ranking
1. Alabama (9-0)
2. Clemson (9-0)
3. Notre Dame (9-0)
4. Michigan (8-1)
5. Georgia (8-1)
6. Oklahoma (8-1)
7. LSU (7-2)
8. Washington State (8-1)
9. West Virginia (7-1)
10. Ohio State (8-1)
11. Kentucky (7-2)
12. UCF (8-0)
13. Syracuse (7-2)
14. NC State (6-2)
15. Florida (6-3)
16. Mississippi State (6-3)
17. Boston College (7-2)
18. Michigan State (6-3)
19. Texas (6-3)
20. Penn State (6-3)
21. Iowa (6-3)
22. Iowa State (5-3)
23. Fresno State (8-1)
24. Auburn (6-3)
25. Washington (7-3)
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 06, 2018, 10:43:04 PM
Florida is so overrated.  




No one should want to be the 4 seed.  Michigan needs to maneuver out of that spot.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Temp430 on November 07, 2018, 06:39:41 AM
As mentioned last night on ESPN's CFP show, I'm thinking West Virginia upsets Oklahoma at home in the final game of the regular season and then the Sooners get revenge in the Big 12 championship game a week later thus eliminating each other from the playoff picture.  Or vice versa.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 07, 2018, 07:01:27 AM
Florida is so overrated.  




No one should want to be the 4 seed.  Michigan needs to maneuver out of that spot.
Georgia kinda won that spot in a sense, really more of an 8 seed I think.
I fear Bama is not just going to win over everyone, but embarrass competent opponents.  I hope I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: utee94 on November 07, 2018, 08:32:34 AM
As mentioned last night on ESPN's CFP show, I'm thinking West Virginia upsets Oklahoma at home in the final game of the regular season and then the Sooners get revenge in the Big 12 championship game a week later thus eliminating each other from the playoff picture.  Or vice versa.
If Oklahoma loses to WVU and Texas wins out, it'll be Texas in a rematch vs. the 'Eers, not the Sooners, since Texas owns the H2H against OU.
And Texas could certainly beat WVU in the rematch, so the end result would still be the B12 teams most likely taking themselves out of CFP contention.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 07, 2018, 09:03:22 AM
I had on ESPN last night yapping about whatever, and they had a "serious" discussion about whether Michigan or Georgia should be at 4.

Seriously?  Why in the world would that matter, at all?  I realize they have to fill time, but Australian Rules Football would be a better option.

I've really changed my "watching habits" over the years so as to ignore "expert analysis" of whatever.  It's akin to watching some show about the stock market, Expert A says blah and B say not blah.

Rant concluded, for now.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: utee94 on November 07, 2018, 09:46:38 AM
I had on ESPN last night yapping about whatever, and they had a "serious" discussion about whether Michigan or Georgia should be at 4.

Seriously?  Why in the world would that matter, at all?  I realize they have to fill time, but Australian Rules Football would be a better option.

I've really changed my "watching habits" over the years so as to ignore "expert analysis" of whatever.  It's akin to watching some show about the stock market, Expert A says blah and B say not blah.

Rant concluded, for now.
I just think it's silly to have a "serious" discussion about any of this right now.  Still over 25% of the season left for most teams that will actually be in contention, including big rivalry games and conference title games for many of them.
Having a "fun" discussion would be one thing, but a "serious" discussion?  Ugh. No thanks.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: FearlessF on November 07, 2018, 09:54:06 AM
I just wish I had a dog in the fight to be interested about enough to rant
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: ELA on November 08, 2018, 09:07:59 AM
No clue where to put this, but Book is out this week against Florida State.

Seminoles suck, but is the door ajar?  Notre Dame was awful until they switched from Wimbush to Book.  Almost lost to Ball State, should have lost to Vanderbilt.
Title: Re: Initial Playoff Committee Rankings
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2018, 09:45:36 AM
Interesting about ND.  

I agree about "fun discussions", mostly about how the Committee appears to be "thinking", but the rankings now are mostly droll really.

Georgia has one obvious path and nothing else matters for that path.