re: Counterpoint - Scheduling (and winning) tough OOC games

quote:

---

You can make of this what it’s worth. My guess is that you will say “ah-ha! See, Bama’s above SMU”. And I could counter with, well, “if this is the bill you want to die on, USC is ahead of Bama”….and then you say “but muh head to head” and I say “well yeah, but it was in Tuscaloosa and they say HFA is worth three points….”

---

quote:

---

lsusa

---

You spent a lot of time writing a lot of dumb things on this thread but the above simple paragraph is pretty illuminating on where you're struggling the most. The entirety of this issue, for you, is Alabama. Alabama and the fact that Alabama makes you sad is the sole reason you are engaged. For everyone else who is following along, the issue is the SEC should have more teams in, based on SOS and SOR. I'm not seeing all these posters whose central point is Alabama's resume should put them in the 2024 playoffs- they just happen to be the first SEC team out based on most projections. Based on computers and SOS/SOR metrics this year the playoffs should have had UGA/UT/UT plus two or three of the following: USC, OM, Bama- I don't care which. The committee did what they were tasked to do after the 2011 shite storm: devalue the SEC as computer-based fields would be absolutely dominated by the SEC. The SEC needs to address this going forward- there is a lot at stake.

quote:

---

You spent a lot of time writing a lot of dumb things on this thread but the above simple paragraph is pretty illuminating on where you're struggling the most

---

lol, I’m nit struggling with anything. I tried to add a little levity by “translating” an anticipated debate into casual language.

quote:

---

For everyone else who is following along, the issue is the SEC should have more teams in, based on SOS and SOR. I'm not seeing all these posters whose central point is Alabama's resume should put them in the 2024 playoffs- they just happen to be the first SEC team out based on most projections. Based on computers and SOS/SOR metrics this year the playoffs should have had UGA/UT/UT plus two or three of the following: USC, OM, Bama- I don't care which

---

I am an SEC fan posting on an SEC forum. I have, in another thread, made the point that Ole Miss was the team that deserved to be in - and Not based upon some mumbo-Jumbo super secret formula created by ESPN.

As I said in the wrap up to the post you quoted, I believe that Alabama’s strength of schedule was accounted for and that it was almost enough to overcome the fact they lost to two 6-6 teams, including one by 21-points in the penultimate week of the season …but not quite.

There are actually three teams where I believe the SEC has a legitimate gripe to say “our
teams are better”. (Not challenging auto bids - which I personally believe are necessary)

Notre Dame is Notre Dame. Like Bama,
they are going to benefit from brand value. Unlike Bama, most of that was from well over 20 years ago. But for some reason, the computers also love Notre Dame. The do have a win over A&M


Indiana is, similar to Texas in this year in the SEC, a team that benefited from playing an unreasonably weak schedule within one of the top two leagues. Overall, the B1G is pretty much a 3-team top heavy league (perhaps giving Penn State too much credit) and Indiana “snuck” in by playing great against a weak schedule. It is an outlier though.

Finally, SMU. First, as I said last night, their strength of record rank shows them 15th, four spots behind Bama. We have no idea to the actual value of their score in comparison to Bama. But from solely the “rank” they are close enough to be within the same statistical band. I nod my head in agreement with every person who says “if (fill in the blank from the SEC) played SMU’s schedule they’d be 11-1 as well”…of course, isn’t that what the SOR is supposed to measure and doesn’t it say that Bama and SMU are a mere four spots apart….. ultimately, SMU did go 11-1 against their schedule, and ultimately, the computer and the committee had them as a playoff team
Over Bama before championship week. Heck, even the old BCS formula had them in over Bama. The committee - correctly or not - said that a team that lost playing in an extra game would not be penalized and lose its
spot, and they stuck to it.

In most years with this new format, the SEC will get and should get at least four teams in.
This year, however, is an abnormal case. The SEC actually has SIX teams tied for 4th place with a 5-3 conference record.

quote:

---

The committee did what they were tasked to do after the 2011 shite storm: devalue the SEC as computer-based fields would be absolutely dominated by the SEC. The SEC needs to address this going forward- there is a lot at stake.

---

While you’re absolutely correct about 2011 making a mockery out of any sense of fair competition, the rest of your argument is bunk.

“The committee” put an undeserving Alabama in on 2017 and 2023, as well as giving the SEC multiple bids in 2022.

The crux of your argument is that it’s imperative the SEC “fix” the issue with the playoffs, but the reason the SEC didn’t get four teams in isn’t because of a flaw in the playoffs or because they scheduled too difficult OOC competition. The biggest factors the SEC didn’t get four teams in is that Alabama and Ole Miss, respectively, shite the bed against 4-8 Kentucky and 6-6 Vandy and Oklahoma.

Despite that, it still took the odd circumstance of Clemson pulling an upset in the ACC title game to keep a fourth SEC team out.

By Manuel's own reasoning, Army should be in the playoff, and SMU out.

quote:

---

Why add more when the committee doesn't care about SOS?

---

Maybe consumers demanding quality football?

If the consumers demand shitty football games, the market will provide shitty football games. It looks to me like the vast majority of posters on this board are demanding shitty football. In the future look for two things: more shitty football games, and fans complaining about all the shitty football games.