Scheduling

[WreckinGT]

Which is exactly why this is BS. This past weekend you had 6 teams playing for a shot at the playoffs. A loss by any of these 6 teams guaranteed they would not get in. Alabama sat at home and didn’t have to do anything. They benefitted tenfold for not having to play an ADDITIONAL game against a top team. Auburn did them the greatest favor in the world by being good enough that by beating them, they guaranteed Alabama didn’t even have to risk the possibility of 2 losses.

This. If you have a system where some teams are better off losing and not making their conference championship game then you have a broken system.

 

[smathis30]

Read the actual selection criteria. They choose the best four teams using stats, polls, then use the four things everyone keeps quoting as the secondary tie breaker. They didn't ignore SoS as it's Strength of record that matters and all strength of record stats say bama is better this year and ohio state was better last year. We aren't ignoring SoS it just doesn't tell the whole story, but strength of record does tell the story

And the points is a concept not a number. GT got blown out by ND in 15 but the scoreboard doesn't reflect that

That's all fine and dandy if the committee came out and said that's there standard. Maybe then teams would go more conservative if they’re having a ****ty game to minimize how many points they lose by. My problem is the committee specifically stated there 4 guidelines they will look at. They ignored 2 of them last year (Head to head and Conference Championships) and they ignored 2 of them this year (Strength of Schedule and Conference Championships).

And if having 1 more loss out of 1 more game bothers you so much, why is Wisconsin not in? Take away a game Alabama doesn’t have to play in and they’re undefeated. Is it because of Strength of Schedule? I thought we were ignoring that one. Or do we only use Strength of Schedule to justify why UCF and Wisconsin don’t get in and not Bama.

 

[smathis30]

UCF is a conference champion, has zero losses, zero 30 point losses and, here’s the kicker, stronger SOS then Bammer.
http://warrennolan.com/football/2017/sos

Stop quoting bad statistics. Almost all stats used in the BCS bowls have them as a worse SOS and worse SoR. They ain't played nobody pawlllll

Conf champs don't matter unless it's a tie breaker

 

[RedPete]

Can we just put all this aside and hope to see Baker Mayfield shine as the best QB in the playoffs and make a legendary run to the National Championship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dressedcheeseside]

...and @smathis30, @dressedcheeseside, et al. Keep it going, gents! I love all of this. You're making good points. Let me just add a thought (or two). IF I were to recommend a team's best path to make the CFB playoffs, here is my FREE advice...

Things a team SHOULD strive to do (in order):

1) Be in a P5 conference or be ND AND WIN all your games.
If you cannot do that,
2) Only lose ONE.. and make sure it is to a very good team.
3) Win your conference championship (if you did #2, you're a P5 conference champ with only 1-loss)
4. Be Alabama.


If you cannot do one of these things including be a conference champ with only 1 loss, you likely have lead a path to NOT being one of the best 4 teams.

Fify.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Stop quoting bad statistics. Almost all stats used in the BCS bowls have them as a worse SOS and worse SoR. They ain't played nobody pawlllll

Conf champs don't matter unless it's a tie breaker

Bamer hasn’t played anybody either and beaten them. And they have none of the other bullet points.

 

[smathis30]

This. If you have a system where some teams are better off losing and not making their conference championship game then you have a broken system.

2011. 4 is better than 2 and not all conferences are made equal

 

[smathis30]

Bamer hasn’t played anybody either and beaten them. And they have none of the other bullet points.

LSU is good. Mississippi state was good until they lost their QB. FSU was good until they lost their QB. Fresno state was decent. Texas A and M was decent. They also looked good the entire season.

 

[WreckinGT]

2011. 4 is better than 2 and not all conferences are made equal

What about 2011? That was an even bigger joke than this years debacle. Ironically that involved the same team getting special treatment that they didn't deserve.

 

[smathis30]

They also have the 4th ranked Strength of Record (Ohio state is 6th and UCF was in the teens) so yes they did beat somebody

 

[smathis30]

What about 2011? That was an even bigger joke than this years debacle. Ironically that involved the same team getting special treatment that they didn't deserve.

Oklahoma state shouldn't have lost and that kills me as a fan of that team. They got the two best teams in and that's all that matters.

 

[WreckinGT]

Oklahoma state shouldn't have lost and that kills me as a fan of that team. They got the two best teams in and that's all that matters.

In your opinion they got the two best teams. By letting opinions drive things some teams will continue to get special treatment that they haven't really earned. When on the field results are meaningless, you have a pretty dumb system.

 

[tmhunter52]

I yearn for the day that Tech fans are debating why WE did or did not make it into the playoff pairings...

 

[dressedcheeseside]

LSU is good. Mississippi state was good until they lost their QB. FSU was good until they lost their QB. Fresno state was decent. Texas A and M was decent. They also looked good the entire season.

All those teams have serious flaws. None were good football teams, imo. UCF's SoS is terrible, I agree with that. I'm not really advocating UCF for the playoff, however, I was just using them to poke holes in the criteria you were propping up in earlier threads. As far as SoS goes, the only thing keeping Bammer's out of the sewer is a loss to Auburn. That doesn't elevate them over tOSU, imo.

Take Bammer's SoS (wins only) and stack it against tOSU's SoS (wins only) and see where that gets ya.

 

[smathis30]

Unfortunately you have to consider the entire season and not just the wins. Ohio state losing twice is what killed them. Losing once is an accident losing twice isn't. My argument the whole time has been good wins and no bad losses. UCF has much fewer good wins than everyone so they aren't in the discussion. You haven't poked holes just ignored the argument. UCF falls at point one Ohio state falls at point two.

 

[smathis30]

Big east had 3 teams in final four a few years back. Is that a problem or a conference Strength? ACC almost always plays itself in the football and lacrosse championships. Sometimes the best teams come from the better leagues those years

In your opinion they got the two best teams. By letting opinions drive things some teams will continue to get special treatment that they haven't really earned. When on the field results are meaningless, you have a pretty dumb system.

 

[WreckinGT]

Big east had 3 teams in final four a few years back. Is that a problem or a conference Strength? ACC almost always plays itself in the football and lacrosse championships. Sometimes the best teams come from the better leagues those years

Its not a problem or conference strength, it is a result of a well defined playoff system in which teams have to win actual games to advance to a certain level. That isn't nearly the same as just giving a team a spot because we think they are good. You can't compare FBS college football to any other sport when it is the only sport that refuses to have a real playoff system.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Standard: do they have one loss and not lose by 30 points?

Worked last two years. What's your standard?

By your standard, Wisconsin should have been chosen over Alabama.

Wisconsin: 12-1, SOS: 50, only loss to #5 team by less than 1 score, lost last game played (in conference championship)
Alabama: 11-1, SOS: 58 only loss to #8 team by over 2 scores, lost last game played (didn't even win their own division, didn't play in conference championship)

Not even close.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

By your standard, Wisconsin should have been chosen over Alabama.

Wisconsin: 12-1, SOS: 50, only loss to #5 team by less than 1 score, lost last game played (in conference championship)
Alabama: 11-1, SOS: 58 only loss to #8 team by over 2 scores, lost last game played (didn't even win their own division, didn't play in conference championship)

Not even close.

Check mate! Well done sir.

 

[jeffgt14]

By your standard, Wisconsin should have been chosen over Alabama.

Wisconsin: 12-1, SOS: 50, only loss to #5 team by less than 1 score, lost last game played (in conference championship)
Alabama: 11-1, SOS: 58 only loss to #8 team by over 2 scores, lost last game played (didn't even win their own division, didn't play in conference championship)

Not even close.

Wrong shade of red.