Started By
Message
When it comes to the CFP, conference championships don’t matter.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 6:38 am
Posted on 12/3/17 at 6:38 am
It hit me last night that we had nothing to gain by playing yesterday’s game at least in terms of winning a national championship. I personally value the conference championship over winning an NC, but considering Alabama will most likely get in over Ohio St, it’s obvious the committee places little value on it. If we really wanted to pursue the CFP, we should have stayed in Auburn yesterday.
Had we done the unthinkable and said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the SECCG, the committee would be forced to show their true colors. We were ranked #2 and had beaten two #1 teams who were on the outside looking in. If they moved us out of the top four to penalize us for skipping the SECCG, they’d be making a statement about the important value of the conference championship. If they moved Alabama or Georgia (or both) in, they’d also make a statement that winning a conference championship doesn’t matter.
This system is ridiculous and needs an overhaul.
Had we done the unthinkable and said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the SECCG, the committee would be forced to show their true colors. We were ranked #2 and had beaten two #1 teams who were on the outside looking in. If they moved us out of the top four to penalize us for skipping the SECCG, they’d be making a statement about the important value of the conference championship. If they moved Alabama or Georgia (or both) in, they’d also make a statement that winning a conference championship doesn’t matter.
This system is ridiculous and needs an overhaul.
3
Posted on 12/3/17 at 6:43 am to StringedInstruments
Just set the criteria before the season.
I can live with anything as long as the process is set up for teams to earn their bid as opposed to a selection by a committee.
I can live with anything as long as the process is set up for teams to earn their bid as opposed to a selection by a committee.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 6:44 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
This system is ridiculous and needs an overhaul.
Either require all playoff teams to be conference champs or do away with the championship games completely.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 7:00 am to AUstar
quote:
Either require all playoff teams to be conference champs or do away with the championship games completely.
It needs to be you have to win it... but of course they don't want a 8-4 Missouri type winning it over an undefeated a Alabama and jumping 15 teams that had 2 losses or less.
What a mess.
What would really by a mess is if they said Bama over uga because auburn was beat up after bama game and osu in anyways because they won their conference game.
Now that would be a really big mess, but not my circus.
This post was edited on 12/3/17 at 7:12 am
Posted on 12/3/17 at 7:03 am to N97883
Bring the BCS back.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 7:12 am to NDonahue
The bcs would give you Clemson vs ou.
And so will the playoff.
And so will the playoff.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 7:17 am to N97883
quote:
t needs to be you have to win it... but of course they don't want a 8-4 Missouri type winning it over an undefeated a Alabama and jumping 15 teams that had 2 losses or less.
First, what would be so bad about putting in a four loss conference champ?
College football has this addiction to mythos. Like at the college level we have to identify the real best team in the country. But as noted by so many controversial seasons, it’s really hard to assess teams (think of how many preseason rankings are wrong, how many teams rise in the rankings only to fall, and how many big time upsets happen throughout the year). Do we really need a story surrounding the championship game? Or just a championship game like every other sport in the world?
Great teams get better throughout the season. Just look at Auburn this year. Two losses and then owned November. Was there any doubt we were a great team heading into yesterday’s game?
What if Missouri lost four games but got progressively better throughout the season? Why can’t they end the season as the best team?
Or do we have to award the team with the best season?
The 2007 New England Patriots had the best season. The Cowboys, Packers, and Colts had the next best seasons. But the pesky NY Giants put together the best team to win the championship. And no one is griping about that system because there’s a criteria that teams can meet.
Two, in college football, there will 99% of the time be four conference champions with less than four losses.
But with that said, we had nothing to gain yesterday and never did. By any “eye test mythical bullshite” metric, we proved to be a team ready for the CFB playoff and not only are getting screwed by our regular season accomplishments but are also contributing to our other main rival being rewarded for sitting at home.
This post was edited on 12/3/17 at 7:19 am
Posted on 12/3/17 at 7:37 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
If they moved us out of the top four to penalize us for skipping the SECCG, they’d be making a statement about the important value of the conference championship.
If they did that, they'd be going against the precedence they set last year.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 10:37 am to N97883
quote:
The bcs would give you Clemson vs ou.
And so will the playoff.
Man I hope so...Can't believe I'm going to be pulling for Oklahoma. But I am. Big time.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 12:04 pm to N97883
quote:
It needs to be you have to win it... but of course they don't want a 8-4 Missouri type winning it over an undefeated a Alabama and jumping 15 teams that had 2 losses or less.
NFL doesn't care about this. .500 teams can theoretically win it all. I mean once you commit to a play-off, this is what you "risk." You risk a mediocre regular season team getting on a hot streak and winning it all.
If we don't like 8-4 teams having a shot at winning it all, we shouldn't have had a play-off. We should have stuck with the "beauty pageant" that was the BCS.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News