Started By
Message
Playoff Committee is going to screw the SEC
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:20 pm
I feel it.
LINK
Translation: The second place team in the SEC West is 11-1, has played a tougher schedule, but Michigan State is 11-2 and they actually won their conference. Michigan State over A&M/Auburn/LSU/Ole Miss/MSU.
LINK
quote:
The committee has made it clear that strength of schedule will be a factor in determining the top four teams, but how is that metric determined? The bulk of games are played against conference opponents, so it would make sense that the committee would need to determine which conference is the best before it determines who has the toughest schedule.
Translation: The second place team in the SEC West is 11-1, has played a tougher schedule, but Michigan State is 11-2 and they actually won their conference. Michigan State over A&M/Auburn/LSU/Ole Miss/MSU.
12
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:22 pm to anc
So? the whole playoff was designed this way to make sure two SEC teams don't get in.
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:22 pm to anc
quote:
The second place team in the SEC West is 11-1
Doesn't matter this year. The second place West team is going to have 2 losses minimum. The winner may even have 2.
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:22 pm to anc
SEC champ gets in an no one else. That is the whole point. Ratings for the rematch sucked, which is good only for LSU fans.
This post was edited on 10/1/14 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:23 pm to anc
quote:
Playoff Committee is going to screw the SEC
The whole point of the selection committee was to keep the SEC runner-up from getting into the playoffs.
They could have used the BCS and added the extra game as a 'plus one' system but that was almost a guarantee that the SEC would have gotten two in every year.
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:24 pm to anc
I don't care to waste time worrying about this. Honestly, if my team wins the conference, I don't won't to have to deal with another SEC game. And it would very likely be the #1 vs #4 match up. That's like playing two SEC championships in a row. And if you win both, a national championship. Screw that.
This post was edited on 10/1/14 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:30 pm to SwaggerCopter
That is a lot of games to win.
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:30 pm to anc
It's not a playoff. It's just 1 extra game.
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:31 pm to anc
I do not think the committee would take 11-2 MichST over 11-1 A&M/Auburn/LSU/Ole Miss/MSU
let's wait till we are anywhere close to those being the only two options before we clamor to burn it all down.
let's wait till we are anywhere close to those being the only two options before we clamor to burn it all down.
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:33 pm to SwaggerCopter
The copter is right.
Even if 2 SEC teams get in they will almost certainly be 1/4 or 2/3.
Even if 2 SEC teams get in they will almost certainly be 1/4 or 2/3.
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:33 pm to Landmass
quote:
It's not a playoff. It's just 1 extra game.
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:38 pm to Kcoyote
quote:
So? the whole playoff was designed this way to make sure two SEC teams don't get in.
thats how it looks from where I sit. the mulligan game pushed this through after all.
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:48 pm to anc
quote:
The second place team in the SEC...
but Michigan State...actually won their conference...
Michigan State over [non-champion SEC team]
I got no problem with that. You want to go to the playoffs, you gotta win your conference.
Why let 2nd rate teams play for it all?
I mean, it's not like the committee is trying leave the SEC champion out. Maybe it could be interpreted as, "Since the SEC is so tough, we'll use SOS to make sure and SEC champion gets in - even with 2 losses."
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:48 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
SEC champ gets in an no one else.
What if:
Oregon 13-0, PAC 12 Champ
Oklahoma 12-0, Big 12 Champ
Nebraska 13-0, Big 10 Champ
FSU 13-0, ACC Champ
Georgia (
) 10-3, SEC Champ (beat previously 12-0 A&M in the SECCG - just go with the hypo, point being, an upset happens in the SECCG and we end up with a "weak" SEC champ) What the frick then?
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:51 pm to elposter
All it's going to take is one year of 3+ 1 loss teams all vying for 1 or 2 spots for the playoff to get expanded.
It will eventually be 8 teams. The 5 "power" conference champs with 3 at large bids
It will eventually be 8 teams. The 5 "power" conference champs with 3 at large bids
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:52 pm to BearBait09
quote:They will take a conference champ with 2 losses imo. Strong push for the conference champ part of things, as if all conferences are created equal. This is a money thing people, don't be dumb. One team from each power conference = the entire nation tunes in.
I do not think the committee would take 11-2 MichST over 11-1 A&M/Auburn/LSU/Ole Miss/MSU
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:54 pm to Kcoyote
quote:
So? the whole playoff was designed this way to make sure two SEC teams don't get in.
The sooner people realize this, the better. 2011 is the ONLY year in the BCS that would of had two SEC teams in with a playoff committee, and even that would have not been guaranteed. If you had kept the BCS rankings and taken the top 4, no selection committee, you would of had two teams from the same conference in:
2001 (Colorado and Nebraska)
2004 (Oklahoma and Texas)
2005 (Penn State and Ohio State)
2006 (Ohio State and Michigan; LSU and Florida)
2008 (Oklahoma and Texas; Florida and Alabama)
2010 (Oregon and Stanford)
2011 (LSU and Alabama)
2012 (Alabama and Florida)
2013 (Auburn and Alabama)
Posted on 10/1/14 at 3:57 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I got no problem with that. You want to go to the playoffs, you gotta win your conference.
That is stupid.
quote:
Why let 2nd rate teams play for it all?
If the SEC West Runner-Up has less losses and is perceived as a better team than the B1G champ, the B1G champ is the lesser team.
quote:
I mean, it's not like the committee is trying leave the SEC champion out. Maybe it could be interpreted as, "Since the SEC is so tough, we'll use SOS to make sure and SEC champion gets in - even with 2 losses."
Of course. Leaving the SEC out wouldn't be a smart move money wise.
Posted on 10/1/14 at 4:00 pm to Kcoyote
quote:
the whole playoff was designed this way to make sure two SEC teams don't get in
this. I don't understand why people continue to think the playoffs are about finding the best team in the nation. the playoffs are about selecting the "right" 4 teams and let them determine a winner on the field.
The "right" 4 teams will be determined by a committee, many of whom don't know shite about football. this will be political at best. the "right" 4 teams will represent as many different regions of the country as possible and will make the TV sponsors happy.
college football ain't ivy league any more; it's ALL about money.
Posted on 10/1/14 at 4:02 pm to RB10
Yeah but the good thing is the SEC champion is all but guaranteed a spot and once in there will flex it's muscle.
Prior to that, the SEC was not guaranteed a spot.
Why did we get to the 4 teams? Because the SEC got 2 teams in, both from the same division at that.
Expanding the other conferences felt like this was their best option to get their conference champs in at least to the party.
Prior to that, the SEC was not guaranteed a spot.
Why did we get to the 4 teams? Because the SEC got 2 teams in, both from the same division at that.
Expanding the other conferences felt like this was their best option to get their conference champs in at least to the party.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News