CFP Discussion

[AugustaSwarm]

Yes. Quoted from the CFP website (emphasis mine):
"...when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree...The selection committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering:

1. Conference championships won,
2. Strength of schedule,
3. Head‐to‐head competition,
4. Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and,
5. Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance."

Comparing FSU to Bama:

1. Both won their conference
2. Bama had a tougher schedule
3. They didn't play each other
4. They both beat LSU...FSU by 3 scores, Bama by 2, but margin doesn't count
5. FSU's starting QB is out, Bama's is not.

Based on this criteria, it's Bama over FSU if there is a case to be made that both teams have"similar records". The main issue here is 13-0 vs. 12-1. In any case, if Bama is in, Texas must be in, leaving out uga.

I guess it's so obvious that they didn't actually state it? An undefeated FSU automatically has a leg up on a one loss Bama team, right? Or are they gonna say a 1 loss record is similar to an undefeated record?

This should be cut and dry - undefeated conference champs are in over 1 loss conference champs.

 

[LongforDodd]

take these off
View attachment 15275

Who are your four?

 

[GT33]

Thanks for the Overview, but that isn't the detail. https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2016/10/24/selection-committee-protocol

Open the "Principles" section. That's where I copied the info from.

Again, injuries is not part of the criteria. This has been made up to pave a way for the SEC to get an undeserving team into the playoffs at the expense of a deserving one, repeated in the media incessantly to try to make it true.

 

[bobongo]

Again, injuries is not part of the criteria. This has been made up to pave a way for the SEC to get an undeserving team into the playoffs at the expense of a deserving one, repeated in the media incessantly to try to make it true.

And if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd hear the SEC argue the opposite, ad nauseum.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It would be ashamed if some teams got in based on old reputations rather than on field results.

 

[stinger78]

Who are your four?

For me: The three undefeated conference champs and the best of the 1-loss conference champs determined first by head-to-head play. That means Texas gets the nod as they beat Bama in Tuscaloosa. It's pretty clear when you don't try to divine what might happen where. It's possible that the starting QB of Michigan, Washington, and/or Texas may get hurt in practice.

 

[LongforDodd]

Is that the measure of a best team? They can beat anyone on a given Saturday? That probably fits 20-30 teams. The mutts are not as strong a team this year as they have been in the past. The majority of the teams they played to this year, they could have lost on a given Saturday. The SEC is under .500 against other P5 conferences this year. The entire conference is down. Alabama has shown that they are beatable. The mutts have shown that they are beatable. They should not just get the benefit of the doubt this year just because of ........ SECSECSECSECSECSECSEC

Everyone has shown they are beatable actually. Ugag just seems to still be better than 99.9% of everyone talent alone.

 

[GT33]

And if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd hear the SEC argue the opposite, ad nauseum.

Criteria #5 which I believed to be made up is not on Page 1, nor on Page 2 describing the selection process. Apparently it got added to one of the "tabs", so significant it is that it doesn't warrant mention except in the footnotes of how to get an SEC team in.

 

[bobongo]

Top 25 SEC OOC Games - 2023

Week 1: Utah 24 - UF 11; UNC 31 - USCe 17; FSU 45 - LSU 24; UGAg 48 - UT-Martin 7; Bama 56 - MTSU 7; UT 49 - UVA 13; TAMU 52 - NM 10
Week 2: Texas 34 - Bama 24; UGAg 45 - Ball St 3; UT 30 - Austin Peay 13; LSU - 72 - Grambling 10; Ole Miss 37 - Tulane 20
Week 3: Bama 17 - USF 3; Mizzou 30 - KSU 27; Ole Miss 48 - GT 23
Week 4: UGA 49 - Ball St 21; UT 45 - UTSA 14; UF 22 - Charlotte 7
Week 10: UT 59 - UConn 3
Week 12: Bama 66 - Chattanooga 10; Ole Miss 35 UL-Monroe 3; LSU 56 - GA St 14
Week 13: FSU 24 - UF 15; Clemson 16 - USCe 7; UGAg 31 - GT 23; UK 38 - UL 31

Of these games, 10 were against other P5 programs. The SEC Top 25 teams were 4-6 against P5 opponents and the ACC was 4-4.
FSU was 2-0 [LSU and Florida]
UNC was 1-0 [South Carolina]
Clemson was 1-0 [South Carolina]

Tennessee was 1-0 [ UVA]
Ole Miss was 1-0 [GT]
UGAg was 1-0 (GT]
Kentucky was 1-0 [Louisville]

The ACC went 6-4 against the SEC.

I've made the argument that head-to-head matchups are the best criteria for judging conference strength, which more often than not in the past favored the SEC.
I'm not going to change that argument this year. Overall this year, the ACC has outperformed the SEC and has proven to be the better conference.

 

[GT33]

Everyone has shown they are beatable actually. Ugag just seems to still be better than 99.9% of everyone talent alone.

Based on crushing 6-6 GT by a record score?

 

[takethepoints]

If you were to actually write down any set of tie-breaker rules, Ohio State and mutts would be left out. Then the head to head would put Texas over Alabama. There is no possible way to draw up a tie-breaker rule scenario where Alabama wins. The only way is to decide totally subjectively that you want Alabama in. Then you can come up with some kind of argument, but that argument is going to be subjective and not something you could actually write a rule about.

Good analysis and I hope that's the way it shakes out. The big problem is what I saw in the last two days. In those games Washington was the best team and Bama was #2. I say this because those teams beat the best opponents in the mix, both Michigan and FSU looked meh, and Texas won big against an opponent they should have beaten like that. That's the subjective factor you are looking at, imho, and I don't know what I would do.

Btw, I think Washington will win the title. Not so much because they are the best team, but because they simply refuse to lose.

 

[LongforDodd]

For me: The three undefeated conference champs and the best of the 1-loss conference champs determined first by head-to-head play. That means Texas gets the nod as they beat Bama in Tuscaloosa. It's pretty clear when you don't try to divine what might happen where. It's possible that the starting QB of Michigan, Washington, and/or Texas may get hurt in practice.

Texas beat bama way early in the year. I don’t think that would be the case today especially in a neutral field setting.

FSU without a doubt could be considered one of the best four if their QB wasn’t hurt.

 

[bobongo]

Everyone has shown they are beatable actually. Ugag just seems to still be better than 99.9% of everyone talent alone.

That's like saying the thing should be decided on paper. They have more 5-stars, so why even have a playoff? Just give it to them on paper. In fact, I'll go ahead and do so now. They win. On paper.

 

[LongforDodd]

Based on crushing 6-6 GT by a record score?

With Bowers and Mckonkey on the sidelines, that was two TD’s right there they didn’t score. That is more than
Likely undeniable.

 

[bobongo]

Texas beat bama way early in the year. I don’t think that would be the case today especially in a neutral field setting.

FSU without a doubt could be considered one of the best four if their QB wasn’t hurt.

None of that matters. FSU has earned its spot in the playoffs. Who's "best", is an arbitrary judgement. The question is, who has earned it?

 

[RonJohn]

Everyone has shown they are beatable actually. Ugag just seems to still be better than 99.9% of everyone talent alone.

The justification for putting the mutts in the playoffs is that EVERYONE is beatable this year? Really? The mutts have zero chance of getting in the playoffs. They have a loss. That puts them below Michigan, Washington, and FSU. They do not have a conference championship. That putts them below Alabama and Texas.

The mutts are by no reasonable measure obviously one of the best teams in the country.

 

[stinger78]

The ACC went 6-4 against the SEC.

I've made the argument that head-to-head matchups are the best criteria for judging conference strength, which more often than not in the past favored the SEC.
I'm not going to change that argument this year. Overall this year, the ACC has outperformed the SEC and has proven to be the better conference.

This was just top 25 teams for either the SEC or ACC. IOW, what the best of the two conferences were playing.

 

[FredJacket]

Comparing conferences may be interesting & something fans (& media) seem to enjoy debating. But for the purposes of breaking out teams for the playoffs... it's another irrelevant distraction. You need to compare the teams... their conference affiliation is not significant to the discussion.

The fact teams play 8 or 9 game conference schedules makes the problem even more difficult because there are so few head to head (or even common opponents).

I've always thought (no matter the year)... conferences top to bottom are always very evenly matched. Folks can only say a conference is better by cherry-picking the data/results.

 

[bobongo]

The justification for putting the mutts in the playoffs is that EVERYONE is beatable this year? Really? The mutts have zero chance of getting in the playoffs. They have a loss. That puts them below Michigan, Washington, and FSU. They do not have a conference championship. That putts them below Alabama and Texas.

The mutts are by no reasonable measure obviously one of the best teams in the country.

They're clearly not the team they were in the previous two seasons.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Is it just uga that sits their players down for key games or is this widespread? I suspect they will have a few more players missing due to protecting their NFL careers regardless of bowl.