Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/4/23 at 4:55 pm to Trauma14
quote:
When I heard we were expanding to a 4 team playoff, I was legitimately excited.
But 4 slots for 5 conferences; AND the possibility (eventual reality) of a conference to grab multiple slots?
Posted on 12/4/23 at 4:55 pm to southernboisb
quote:
What about any implications from the IB?
I believe in wins and losses.
Sometimes football is ugly. Sometimes coaches put a great plan plan together and punch above their weight class unexpectedly. Sometimes kids get amped up, and play above their normal level. Rivalry games are particularly ripe for both of these.
I do not believe titles should be awarded based on how any team looks. The "eye test" is inherently bullshite.
FSU win every game on their schedule. So did Michigan and Washington. They should all be in.
Bama and Texas should have competed for the 4th spot. Same record. Texas has h2h, but Bama killed a giant to close out the season, upset #1. That counts for more than h2h IMO.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 5:00 pm to Krampus
quote:
And there it is. Looks over wins
And there it is, another person that thinks all wins are equal.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 5:01 pm to TizzyT4theUofA
The fact that they aren't is proof that college football is a broken sport.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 5:04 pm to Texas Gentleman
quote:
I still think FSU got screwed since Ohio State won a CFP with a third string QB
Prevent but that year everyone was mad because they got in over Penn state who won the conference. Imagine that this isn’t a Bama thing.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 5:05 pm to Krampus
quote:
I believe in wins and losses.
quote:You "believe in wins and losses" but then state that h2h doesn't matter, when in fact one of the teams in question wins and the other loses?
Bama and Texas should have competed for the 4th spot. Same record. Texas has h2h, but Bama killed a giant to close out the season, upset #1. That counts for more than h2h IMO.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 5:07 pm to Shea Vinnerbush
quote:
in fact one of the teams in question wins and the other loses?
False. Both won the same amount of games. Same record. Both 12-1. Both conference champs. Both deserving IMO.
But because of the stupid system we have in place the tie has to be broken.
I think Bama had the stronger tie breaker due to beating Georgia.
This post was edited on 12/4/23 at 5:09 pm
Posted on 12/4/23 at 5:12 pm to Krampus
I agree that records SHOULD matter.
My issues are:
A - determining WHEN (during the season) games count
B - how you play in the games (ex.: what does needing a lucky break at the end of a game to beat a so-so team who lost the week before do to that factor?)
C - having a format where anything goes as what may apply one year may not apply again (& vice versa)
D - (controversial here) but the "Team X would beat Team Y if they played now"
E - (along with A & D) WHEN in the season does H2H & injuries impact a team's placement
My issues are:
A - determining WHEN (during the season) games count
B - how you play in the games (ex.: what does needing a lucky break at the end of a game to beat a so-so team who lost the week before do to that factor?)
C - having a format where anything goes as what may apply one year may not apply again (& vice versa)
D - (controversial here) but the "Team X would beat Team Y if they played now"
E - (along with A & D) WHEN in the season does H2H & injuries impact a team's placement
Posted on 12/4/23 at 5:16 pm to Krampus
quote:
I think Bama had the stronger tie breaker due to beating Georgia
you dont think texas beating bama at their place is the tie breaker?
Posted on 12/4/23 at 5:17 pm to Jimmy Montrose
quote:
Georgia's beat win is against no. 10 Mizzou, so they should be 8 or 9 at best.
They also pounded #11. How many other teams had multiple wins vs teams of that quality?
Alabama
Washington
Michigan
Texas isn't in that group, and neither is FSU (Louisville is clearly a notch below both Mizzou and Ole Miss).
Does having one win that's a '10' trump having two that are a '9'?
It's up for debate, certainly. All this talk of Bama vs FSU is off base, IMO. The better question is Texas vs Georgia.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 5:20 pm to geauxnavybeatbama
quote:
you dont think texas beating bama at their place is the tie breaker?
I think an argument could be made for that.
The underlying ultimate bottom line for me is that this whole system for awarding national titles is fricked. We should not have to decide things like this. The fact that this conversation has to be had at all tells us that this system is broken.
There should be a set path to the playoff, where a clear and defined path to a title exists for every team from day one of the season. Let the team earn it on the field and the chips fall where they may.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 5:23 pm to southernboisb
quote:
agree that records SHOULD matter.
My issues are:
A - determining WHEN (during the season) games count
B - how you play in the games (ex.: what does needing a lucky break at the end of a game to beat a so-so team who lost the week before do to that factor?)
C - having a format where anything goes as what may apply one year may not apply again (& vice versa)
D - (controversial here) but the "Team X would beat Team Y if they played now"
E - (along with A & D) WHEN in the season does H2H & injuries impact a team's placement
You just laid out a very compelling arguemnt for dumping all of this poll/commottee/algorithm/formula bullshite and creating a legitimate, nationwide schedule with clearly defined path to a national title.
Or do away with national titles altogether and focus on competing for conference titles, the way high schools compete for state titles.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 5:30 pm to Krampus
quote:
There should be a set path to the playoff, where a clear and defined path to a title exists for every team from day one of the season.
Agreed. That would be ideal. No grey areas. Now that the Pac is done, you could accomplish that with a four team playoff that includes only the conference champions of the remaining Power conferences.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 5:42 pm to Krampus
quote:
The fact that they aren't is proof that college football is a broken sport
What do you mean? What would fix it?
Posted on 12/4/23 at 6:11 pm to LetItBe
quote:
Now that the Pac is done, you could accomplish that with a four team playoff that includes only the conference champions of the remaining Power conferences.
I would much prefer this setup to the 12 team playoff that is still hand picked by human committee.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:29 pm to Krampus
My 2 biggest things are:
A - the decision for 4 slots amongst 5 conferences
&
B - the whole inconsistency we've dealt with for 10 years on what matters now that didn't apply before (& vice versa) as well as what does (not) apply in comparison of teams in THE SAME YEAR
A - the decision for 4 slots amongst 5 conferences
&
B - the whole inconsistency we've dealt with for 10 years on what matters now that didn't apply before (& vice versa) as well as what does (not) apply in comparison of teams in THE SAME YEAR
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News