Scheduling

[dressedcheeseside]

Ok, give me a solid reason why? Because they have just one loss to a very good team imo doesn't say they aren't a top 4 teams. I understand the sos wasn't that hard but we can say because of that they are a toot 4 teams.

They didn’t beat anybody great and they’re not a champion, not even a division.

 

[jeffgt14]

So conference championship is the only thing that matters? Ok....

No but it certainly makes for a good tie breaker when comparing similar resumes. Something the committee themselves had stated.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Ohio state is 6 spots above Bama in SOS, so not a huge difference. Bama has 1 loss to a good team. Ohio state has 2 losses, 1 to a good team, and 1 to an average team that beat them pretty bad. Ohio State made their conference championship with 2 losses, Bama missed theirs with only 1 loss. So who's to say if Bama wasn't in the big 10 they wouldn't have won it? Honestly it's all based on opinions, but the only thing Ohio State has over Bama is a conference championship, but still with 2 losses. I keep asking who should be in over Bama and for someone to give a reason why, but the only answer I get is "conference championship" as if that's the ONLY deciding factor. I just see how we can ignore who losses were against, and final record.

 

[tech_wreck47]

No but it certainly makes for a good tie breaker when comparing similar resumes. Something the committee themselves had stated.

I get that, but if Bama won in more things they are looking for, the conference championship wouldn't be a tie breaker. IMO it's all based on opinions so i don't see how anyone can say 100 percent that a team isn't a top 4 out of those two teams.

 

[tech_wreck47]

They didn’t beat anybody great and they’re not a champion, not even a division.

Ok, who is "great" that Ohio state beat? Wisconsin? A team that has a worse sos compared to Bama. Ohio state also loss to a team that they shouldn't have, and they actually got beat down by them, did that happen to Bama? I think some are putting to much into conference championships when they aren't all made equal.

 

[forensicbuzz]

If you don't want to include tOSU, then Wisconsin should be in. They're 12-1 with their only loss to a 11-2 top-5 team. They played in their conference championship. Bama's 11-1 with a loss to a 10-3 top-10 team. They didn't play in their conference championship. I'd put Wisconsin's schedule up against Alabama's any day.

 

[GTRX7]

Where can one find good SOS numbers?

 

[Sideways]

You are making the ASSUMPTION that Alabama would beat OSU on a neutral field.

I hate to say it but UGA's path to a national championship got harder not easier. They would much rather play Ohio State than Alabama or Clemson for that matter. I don't think it is fair for a third place team to jump a conference champion but that is exactly what happened. Too bad for the dogs because let me tell you in their heart of hearts they would much prefer facing Ohio State.

 

[Sideways]

I hope Clemson beats them by 30 and embarrasses the committee.

It would not surprise me if that does not happen. Clemson has a good chance of taking the whole shebang.

 

[jeffgt14]

Again. It's pretty clear there is a legitimate argument between which team is better between Alabama and Ohio State. The committees own guidelines used to resolve this was ignored. I could give a **** less about any other assumptions anyone wants to throw out there. These are the committees guidelines that they flat out ignored.

If they would've just came out and said they're going to pick the 4 teams that pass their eye test of who they think is best with zero regard to anything else when they formed this committee, then so be it. They established these guidelines.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Ok, who is "great" that Ohio state beat? Wisconsin? A team that has a worse sos compared to Bama. Ohio state also loss to a team that they shouldn't have, and they actually got beat down by them, did that happen to Bama? I think some are putting to much into conference championships when they aren't all made equal.

The playoffs should be a battle of champions, if you're not a champion, you don't belong. That is my opinion. That's how playoffs work in every level of every sport not named FBS. I guess figure skating is like FBS if you call it a sport.

 

[FredJacket]

Again. It's pretty clear there is a legitimate argument between which team is better between Alabama and Ohio State. The committees own guidelines used to resolve this was ignored. I could give a **** less about any other assumptions anyone wants to throw out there. These are the committees guidelines that they flat out ignored.

If they would've just came out and said they're going to pick the 4 teams that pass their eye test of who they think is best with zero regard to anything else when they formed this committee, then so be it. They established these guidelines.

I could be wrong... but it is my understanding those guidelines come into play AFTER the committee has determined two teams are too close based on what I assume is the "full body of work" or resume or whatever you call it. You seem to think the opposite. That those ARE the criteria.

I think (I don't know) the committee saw Alabama clearly better than OSU. I'm not sure you disagree. ...and I think it did come down to a 2loss OSU team with that "bad" loss being Iowa. Alabama did not have such a loss.

 

[tech_wreck47]

The playoffs should be a battle of champions, if you're not a champion, you don't belong. That is my opinion. That's how playoffs work in every level of every sport not named FBS. I guess figure skating is like FBS if you call it a sport.

I agree with that, but it's hard to do that when you don't include every champion because their isn't enough playoff spots. Every sport also has wild cards. Because of this the championship argument goes out the door for me. IMO it should be the top school from every power 5 conference plus 3 wild cards maybe even 5. I also think you should be forced to join a power 5 conference if your independent.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Again. It's pretty clear there is a legitimate argument between which team is better between Alabama and Ohio State. The committees own guidelines used to resolve this was ignored. I could give a **** less about any other assumptions anyone wants to throw out there. These are the committees guidelines that they flat out ignored.

If they would've just came out and said they're going to pick the 4 teams that pass their eye test of who they think is best with zero regard to anything else when they formed this committee, then so be it. They established these guidelines.

You know more about their guidelines than me because I just though it was based on who they thought the 4 best teams were and they used a few different things to help decide that. What guidelines did they ignore?

 

[smathis30]

Ohio State 2017, USC 2017, Penn State 2016 all share the same factor: They lost to a team by over 30 points. Its simple. Any team that deserves a shot at the title shouldn't be blow out by anyone. PEnn State 2016 also lost to a team that a team that made the playoff lost to by almost 50. Food for thought.

No need to knock Bama's schedule. FSU had the potential to be a top 10 team before they had 8 injuries in the bama game.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Ohio State 2017, USC 2017, Penn State 2016 all share the same factor: They lost to a team by over 30 points. Its simple. Any team that deserves a shot at the title shouldn't be blow out by anyone. PEnn State 2016 also lost to a team that a team that made the playoff lost to by almost 50. Food for thought.

No need to knock Bama's schedule. FSU had the potential to be a top 10 team before they had 8 injuries in the bama game.

That would be fine with me if that was in their official guidelines, but it's not.

 

[jeffgt14]

I could be wrong... but it is my understanding those guidelines come into play AFTER the committee has determined two teams are too close based on what I assume is the "full body of work" or resume or whatever you call it. You seem to think the opposite. That those ARE the criteria.

I think (I don't know) the committee saw Alabama clearly better than OSU. I'm not sure you disagree. ...and I think it did come down to a 2loss OSU team with that "bad" loss being Iowa. Alabama did not have such a loss.

I never once was anywhere close to saying those are the criteria. If the committee thought that Alabama was that much better than OSU that they didn't even have to look into any of their tiebreaker scenarios then I just disagree with that. Thanks conflict here is some of y'all value quality losses over quality wins. If that's the case then this thread is 100% correct. Don't schedule tough teams because it won't matter if you do win.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Ohio State 2017, USC 2017, Penn State 2016 all share the same factor: They lost to a team by over 30 points. Its simple. Any team that deserves a shot at the title shouldn't be blow out by anyone. PEnn State 2016 also lost to a team that a team that made the playoff lost to by almost 50. Food for thought.

No need to knock Bama's schedule. FSU had the potential to be a top 10 team before they had 8 injuries in the bama game.

How 'bout this caveat: Nobody gets in w/o winning your division???

or how 'bout this one: Nobody gets in w/o a SoS below 30??? (That would eliminate both bama-56, the mutts-37. OK would barely slip in at 29 as would tOSU at 28. The only one of the 5 with a decent SoS is Clemson at 8.)

 

[zhavenor]

So conference championship is the only thing that matters? Ok....

Nm.

 

[WreckinGT]

Ohio State 2017, USC 2017, Penn State 2016 all share the same factor: They lost to a team by over 30 points. Its simple. Any team that deserves a shot at the title shouldn't be blow out by anyone. PEnn State 2016 also lost to a team that a team that made the playoff lost to by almost 50. Food for thought.

No need to knock Bama's schedule. FSU had the potential to be a top 10 team before they had 8 injuries in the bama game.

If it weren't for a garbage time TD, UGA would have lost to Auburn by 30 this year.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Ohio state is 6 spots above Bama in SOS, so not a huge difference. Bama has 1 loss to a good team. Ohio state has 2 losses, 1 to a good team, and 1 to an average team that beat them pretty bad. Ohio State made their conference championship with 2 losses, Bama missed theirs with only 1 loss. So who's to say if Bama wasn't in the big 10 they wouldn't have won it? Honestly it's all based on opinions, but the only thing Ohio State has over Bama is a conference championship, but still with 2 losses. I keep asking who should be in over Bama and for someone to give a reason why, but the only answer I get is "conference championship" as if that's the ONLY deciding factor. I just see how we can ignore who losses were against, and final record.

OK, Wisconsin lost 1 game to the #5 ranked team. The team they lost to only had 2 losses. The game was close and Wisconsin had a chance to win at the end. The game they lost was also the Big 10 Conference Championship game. They were in 1st place in their half of their conference.

Let’s see. Bammer came in 2nd in their half of their conference to a team that lost 3 games. The team they lost to is ranked #7 as opposed to Wisconsin’s loss to the #5 team. Bammer never had a chance to win that game because they got whipped unlike Wisconsin that was in the game at the end. Bammer does not play in their conference championship game because they didn’t win enough games, unlike Wisconsin that played a 13th game.

I can partially see the arguments against OSU, but under what queer logic could the committee select Bammer over Wisconsin? Oh let me think- they just thought Bammer looks like a better team. Really?