The Polls (AP, Coaches, & CFP, etc.)

[jwinslow]

so who deserved to get in over bama if not osu? auburn, with their 3 losses? wisconsin, whose résumé was no better than bama's? usc, who played in a lackluster conference and had 2 losses, one of them being by 35 points?

i guess the point is that if you're a program that didn't make clear its case for a playoff berth, don't complain when you're left out. osu could have not lost by 31 to a middling team. wisconsin could have scheduled a good conference opponent. usc could have not been shellacked on a national stage. auburn could have not lost 3 games. so, yeah, if i'm looking at a bunch of programs with roughly similar résumés, i'm defaulting to arguably the best coach of all time who is running arguably the best program of all time that is arguably on the best run of all time. to be sure, bama under saban ain't losing 31-0 in the playoff.

And like always, the rules are different for Alabama, including requiring them to beat someone of consequence.

Their best win was over Fresno state. That's the kind of laugher that prevents the Boise States of the world from getting in. Maybe they get credit for breaking the fsu QB. Maybe that fsu team just wasn't that good (like this year). Vt just did the same thing to them.

The reality is they played one somewhat good team (who lost 4 GM's) and lost. For almost anyone else, with such a terrible resume, that would be a deal breaker. For Alabama, it's not.

Which means they'll have to lose 2-3 games to be eliminated from contention this year, while everyone else will be on the bubble after loss 1.

They are unparalleled, but it helps when you're given breaks. Like OSU has also received (just not in similar quantities ).

 

[jwinslow]

i think it's stupid to have 4 playoff spots when there are 5 major conferences. there will always be issues whether it's a committee determining contenders or if it's a combination of humans and computers determining contenders. the only reasonable decision, in my opinion, is to expand the playoff to 8 spots composed of this:

1. 5 automatic bids (i.e, conference champs) from majors
2. 2 at-large
3. 1 non-major ranked above n-th place or 1 more at-large if there is no worthy non-major


of course, all of this has been hashed, rehashed, and triple-hashed. until then, it's up to each program to leave no shadow of a doubt.

That first game better be at home sites. Frankly I think it's ridiculous that the semifinals are not at home also but I understand who they are serving.

Make a little guy like ucf go into the one seeds house. Make B1G and SEC teams actually meet in their legendary venues.

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

That first game better be at home sites. Frankly I think it's ridiculous that the semifinals are not at home also but I understand who they are serving.

Make a little guy like ucf go into the one seeds house. Make B1G and SEC teams actually meet in their legendary venues.

i don't think there is any other way to do it that makes sense... and, more importantly, cents. two neutral-site games in successive weeks would be too great a burden on fanbases. moreover, fans of midwestern teams should be in love with the idea of an 8-team playoff. getting a warm weather powerhouse to play in columbus around new year's? yeah, i think i'd like to see that.

 

[kujirakira]

Yes, I absolutely place those above Alabama's cowardly scheduling of Mercer (4-4 conference).

For the record, since you keep attempting to spin other teams that have nothing to do with the topic (ie Kent State) ... which kind of begs the question why you're even debating this ? And sort of outlines that you have a preconceived conclusion irregardless of the facts ... here are the actual schedules.

USC played an OOC of #14 @Notre Dame (9-3), Texas (6-6), Western Michigan (6-6)**, a 9th conference game against #18 @Washington State (9-3), and a CCG against #13 Stanford (9-3).

Wisconsin played an OOC of @BYU (4-9), FAU (10-3), and Utah St (6-6)**. They played a 9th conference game against Michigan (8-4), and a CCG against #5 Ohio State (11-2).

Auburn played an OOC of #1 @Clemson (12-1), Mercer (DIAA), Louisiana Monroe (4-8), and Georgia Southern (2-10). They played a CCG against #3 Georgia (12-1). AFAIC, @Clemson goes a long way making up for an FCS opponent.

Bama played Mercer (DIAA), FSU (6-6)**, Fresno State (9-4), and Colorado State (6-6)**. They did not have to play a quality opponent from the SEC East. They did not play in a CCG. They played just 4 total away games to Vanderbilt, #23 Mississippi St, TAMU, and #7 Auburn. They lost to the ONLY top-15 team they played all year, and even top-25 #17 LSU (9-3) and #23 Miss St (8-4) proved to be over-rated and likely only in the polls as an attempt to cover for Bama's undeserved rankings.

UCF played Austin Peay (DIAA), @Maryland (4-8), FIU (8-4), and a weather-cancelled game against Georgia Tech. FWIW, Austin Peay was added in the midst of the season to reschedule a 2nd weather-cancelled conference opponent (#20 Memphis). They played #20 Memphis again (10-2) in CCG; giving them as many quality wins as Bama.

*Playoff Committee's own final rankings used.
**Needed FCS opponents just to become bowl eligible.

 

[BuckeyeBiz]

so who deserved to get in over bama if not osu? auburn, with their 3 losses? wisconsin, whose résumé was no better than bama's? usc, who played in a lackluster conference and had 2 losses, one of them being by 35 points?

i guess the point is that if you're a program that didn't make clear its case for a playoff berth, don't complain when you're left out. osu could have not lost by 31 to a middling team. wisconsin could have scheduled a good conference opponent. usc could have not been shellacked on a national stage. auburn could have not lost 3 games. so, yeah, if i'm looking at a bunch of programs with roughly similar résumés, i'm defaulting to arguably the best coach of all time who is running arguably the best program of all time that is arguably on the best run of all time. to be sure, bama under saban ain't losing 31-0 in the playoff.

Agree with you. The absolute turd laid in Iowa (after laying a turd at home against OK) was difficult to overcome. The team wasn’t prepared for that game after a mentally exhausting comeback win over PsU. I would have loved to have seen UCF. They were the most deserving out of the rest of the field. Bama was the best out of the rest of the field (that’s what the committee is supposed to pick) and they proved it on the field. I think most folks grievances come from is the inconsistency from year to year.

 

[Woody1968]

is mercer really any worse, though, than the non-conference doormats most top teams schedule each and every year? was mercer really that much worse than the 2-9 kent state we beat 66-0 in 2014?

Yes, Mercer is much worse.

 

[BuckeyeBiz]

i think it's stupid to have 4 playoff spots when there are 5 major conferences. there will always be issues whether it's a committee determining contenders or if it's a combination of humans and computers determining contenders. the only reasonable decision, in my opinion, is to expand the playoff to 8 spots composed of this:

1. 5 automatic bids (i.e, conference champs) from majors
2. 2 at-large
3. 1 non-major ranked above n-th place or 1 more at-large if there is no worthy non-major


of course, all of this has been hashed, rehashed, and triple-hashed. until then, it's up to each program to leave no shadow of a doubt.

It would neutralize a lot of subjectivity if every P5 conference played by the same scheduling rules. No FCS games, 9 conference games, minimum 1 P5 out of conference and shutdown the SEC pre-rivalry week cupcake. SEC will never change their schedules until forced and I don’t blame them. If we played 8 conference games, Iowa probably didn’t happen last year and Satan has one less ring and there would have been insufferable nonstop coverage of infantile bitching and moaning from Nicky. The SEC has a built in schedule advantage that should be either neutralized (see above) or factored into rankings. That latter will not happen so all we can do is take care of business and leave no doubt.

 

[kujirakira]

It would neutralize a lot of subjectivity if every P5 conference played by the same scheduling rules. No FCS games, 9 conference games, minimum 1 P5 out of conference and shutdown the SEC pre-rivalry week cupcake. SEC will never change their schedules until forced and I don’t blame them. If we played 8 conference games, Iowa probably didn’t happen last year and Satan has one less ring and there would have been insufferable nonstop coverage of infantile bitching and moaning from Nicky. The SEC has a built in schedule advantage that should be either neutralized (see above) or factored into rankings. That latter will not happen so all we can do is take care of business and leave no doubt.

Sadly, the B1G has seen how it works and gone back on the "no FCS" rule... expect more teams (Wisconsin) to take the easy way out. Just as we saw this trend w/ BCS... weaker and weaker scheduling to minimize that loss column, history is repeating now that playoff committee is rewarding teams for not beating anyone while winning most/all games.
https://www.landof10.com/big-ten/big-ten-fcs-scheduling-ban-jim-delany

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

which kind of begs the question why you're even debating this ?

i'm debating this because i think it's foolish to claim there has been some harsh grievance when multiple teams failed to prove that they undeniably belonged in the playoff. the only team that had a claim is ucf. osu? bullshit. don't lose by 31. usc? bullshit. don't lose by 34. auburn? bullshit. don't lose 3 games. wisconsin? bullshit. stop scheduling no powerhouses year-in and year-out. and maybe win your conference once in a while.

does all of that mean that alabama undeniably proved that they belonged? no, it does not. however, if the other programs aren't going to stake their claim and remove all doubt, then guess what? you might just lose your spot to the program that had won 4 of the last 7 national championships heading into last year's playoff. the committee knew that by selecting alabama that bama was a title-contending team. they knew they weren't going to get an osu-type team that loses 31-0.

some may claim that alabama has proven that you can play easy teams and get in. nah, i'd say all that bama has proven is that bama gets the benefit of the doubt because they're arguably the best program of all time coached by the best coach of all time going through the best run of all time. it sucks, but it's the truth.

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

If we played 8 conference games, Iowa probably didn’t happen last year...

i agree with much of your post, but i don't think it's a "probably" that we would not have played iowa if we had instead played 8 conference games. the most recent games versus iowa were 2013, 2010, and 2009. on the other hand, we've played illinois each season except for 2016. i'm pretty sure we'd still have that 31-point loss to iowa on our schedule even if a conference game had been dropped.

 

[BuckeyeBiz]

Sadly, the B1G has seen how it works and gone back on the "no FCS" rule... expect more teams (Wisconsin) to take the easy way out. Just as we saw this trend w/ BCS... weaker and weaker scheduling to minimize that loss column, history is repeating now that playoff committee is rewarding teams for not beating anyone while winning most/all games.
https://www.landof10.com/big-ten/big-ten-fcs-scheduling-ban-jim-delany[/QUOTE

Hadn’t heard that...welp let’s get Tress on the horn the

i agree with much of your post, but i don't think it's a "probably" that we would not have played iowa if we had instead played 8 conference games. the most recent games versus iowa were 2013, 2010, and 2009. on the other hand, we've played illinois each season except for 2016. i'm pretty sure we'd still have that 31-point loss to iowa on our schedule even if a conference game had been dropped.

Yep, good catch. And not having the 9th conference game could have hurt us in 16 and in out years. It’s frustrating we’re not playing by equal rules or “best team” is measured consistently but I got to tell you this year I’m feeling very confident our boys are going to take care of business and leave no room for doubt. I’d still take the playoff system over the BCS hands down. Increased the excitement / interest level for more teams and the regular season hasn’t suffered. The negative is there’s a potential unintended consequence of watered down scheduling setting root but not necessarily seeing it thus far.

 

[dragurd]

i agree with much of your post, but i don't think it's a "probably" that we would not have played iowa if we had instead played 8 conference games. the most recent games versus iowa were 2013, 2010, and 2009. on the other hand, we've played illinois each season except for 2016. i'm pretty sure we'd still have that 31-point loss to iowa on our schedule even if a conference game had been dropped.

I'm sorry but take the names off the front of the jersey and compare Alabama and Wisconsin that year. Not a whole lot of difference but Bama got to go cause they were Bama no other reason. Replace Bama on the jersey with Mississippi St do you think they make it with that pile of crap they played last year?

 

[Mike80]

Agree with you. The absolute turd laid in Iowa (after laying a turd at home against OK) was difficult to overcome. The team wasn’t prepared for that game after a mentally exhausting comeback win over PsU. I would have loved to have seen UCF. They were the most deserving out of the rest of the field. Bama was the best out of the rest of the field (that’s what the committee is supposed to pick) and they proved it on the field. I think most folks grievances come from is the inconsistency from year to year.

That and I can't mentally de-couple Bama getting the benefit of the doubt from ESECSECSECPN owning the TV rights to the CFP. Given how ESECPN jocks the SEC narrative all year long and then an SEC team getting the benefit of the doubt just doesn't sit well.

 

[BayBuck]

That and I can't mentally de-couple Bama getting the benefit of the doubt from ESECSECSECPN owning the TV rights to the CFP. Given how ESECPN jocks the SEC narrative all year long and then an SEC team getting the benefit of the doubt just doesn't sit well.

Yes. Those intertwined business relationships are why we shouldn't be giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone for giving the benefit of the doubt to Bama. It's so many probable conflicts of interest, along with the opaque and arbitrary behavior of "The Committee", that bring the integrity of the entire operation into question.

 

[kujirakira]

Alabama? bullshit. stop scheduling no powerhouses year-in and year-out.

FTFY

i agree with much of your post, but i don't think it's a "probably" that we would not have played iowa if we had instead played 8 conference games.

I didn't say anything about Iowa or Ohio State's 9th game.. what is this Twitter where you just make up things nobody said and respond with nonsense ?
I started this conversation saying I think we didn't deserve to go, and never brought Ohio State back into the conversation.

You make up teams nobody played (Kent State), and you don't even read the posts you're responding to ... waste of time talking to ya.