Started By
Message
The problem is not OOC schedules
Posted on 12/8/24 at 6:19 pm
Posted on 12/8/24 at 6:19 pm
The problem with this system is simple. There is an inherent contradiction between the CFP system and quality play in the SEC.
The SEC up and down the conference is simply incomparably more challenging than any other conference. This includes our unranked teams (one of our worst teams this year, MSU, lost to a team that now has BYE in the first round by one TD). As college ball changes, every year there will be upsets and close losses in away games that will add up in the conference. It also means that SEC teams will be worn down by the time the playoff comes around while other teams have played soft schedules. But this ultimately makes playing in the SEC more interesting and fun to watch during the season.
The problem is that this is in direct conflict with the interests of the CFP, which has shown that the only thing that matters is wins and losses. All other claims have been shown to be hollow.
Every other conference can create a schedule where the top teams do not play each other. Cupcake schedules are rewarded. You will continue to get teams in that have ZERO good wins, teams that have lost EVERY challenging game.
Indiana, Penn St, SMU, and even Texas have ZERO current top 25 wins. Boise State has one (UNLV!) Indiana, Boise State, PSU, and SMU have lost every single game against a team with a pulse. Many others might have one quality win (ASU). A single quality win should not get you in the playoff, period.
This means that the interests of having a good SEC and the CFP are in direct conflict. As this totally flawed system increases its influence, there will be more incentive to weaken conference play. You can see this even in the commentary in the last 4-5 weeks of the season, where you cannot watch a game for more than 10 mins without some stupid remark or graphic from commentators about what this "might mean" for CFP rankings. The games just become functions of that discourse.
It also means that all other bowl games become meaningless.
It's not sustainable and it's not good for football. I genuinely have no interest spending my free time watching teams with zero quality wins play each other in a bracket. The BCS was better (would be perfect this year - let UGA beat the shite out of Oregon for a title) and let the rest play meaningful bowls.
The SEC up and down the conference is simply incomparably more challenging than any other conference. This includes our unranked teams (one of our worst teams this year, MSU, lost to a team that now has BYE in the first round by one TD). As college ball changes, every year there will be upsets and close losses in away games that will add up in the conference. It also means that SEC teams will be worn down by the time the playoff comes around while other teams have played soft schedules. But this ultimately makes playing in the SEC more interesting and fun to watch during the season.
The problem is that this is in direct conflict with the interests of the CFP, which has shown that the only thing that matters is wins and losses. All other claims have been shown to be hollow.
Every other conference can create a schedule where the top teams do not play each other. Cupcake schedules are rewarded. You will continue to get teams in that have ZERO good wins, teams that have lost EVERY challenging game.
Indiana, Penn St, SMU, and even Texas have ZERO current top 25 wins. Boise State has one (UNLV!) Indiana, Boise State, PSU, and SMU have lost every single game against a team with a pulse. Many others might have one quality win (ASU). A single quality win should not get you in the playoff, period.
This means that the interests of having a good SEC and the CFP are in direct conflict. As this totally flawed system increases its influence, there will be more incentive to weaken conference play. You can see this even in the commentary in the last 4-5 weeks of the season, where you cannot watch a game for more than 10 mins without some stupid remark or graphic from commentators about what this "might mean" for CFP rankings. The games just become functions of that discourse.
It also means that all other bowl games become meaningless.
It's not sustainable and it's not good for football. I genuinely have no interest spending my free time watching teams with zero quality wins play each other in a bracket. The BCS was better (would be perfect this year - let UGA beat the shite out of Oregon for a title) and let the rest play meaningful bowls.
12
Posted on 12/8/24 at 6:27 pm to gambetti
I agree....I think SEC got duped. They sold it to us as we can get 4 teams in and have an all SEC final 4.
In reality this was a way to watch us beat up on each other and get the rest of the county more opportunity to play in some big games.
In reality this was a way to watch us beat up on each other and get the rest of the county more opportunity to play in some big games.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 6:33 pm to Jeepin_Josh
quote:
I agree....I think SEC got duped.
Lane to his credit has been the only one consistently and openly making this argument.
The system is built to give more leverage to weaker conferences. It's obvious just on a logical level, and this should have been recognized when discussions were starting.
The SEC will have 3-4 at least teams left out each year that are very obviously better than multiple CFP teams, but of course they are not going to put those teams in.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 6:50 pm to gambetti
The only thing that matters is number of losses. Period.
Sure, they’ll rank a 2-loss team above a one-loss here or there, but not enough to affect the outcome of the playoff.
You could play an AFC North schedule, if you have 3 losses then SMU and Boise State are getting in and you’re going to Florida somewhere in a half empty stadium.
Sure, they’ll rank a 2-loss team above a one-loss here or there, but not enough to affect the outcome of the playoff.
You could play an AFC North schedule, if you have 3 losses then SMU and Boise State are getting in and you’re going to Florida somewhere in a half empty stadium.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 6:54 pm to gambetti
Sir, you are preaching to a room full of people with a collective IQ of a potato.
You did not mention “Bammer melt” anywhere in this post, so this will go straight over their heads.
You did not mention “Bammer melt” anywhere in this post, so this will go straight over their heads.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:17 pm to gambetti
Do you suggest we we add softs teams to the conference?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:28 pm to gambetti
quote:
The system is built to give more leverage to weaker conferences. It's obvious just on a logical level, and this should have been recognized when discussions were starting.
Exactly. The 12 team playoff is the college football equivalent of the participation trophy. Multiple deserving SEC teams will be left out every year.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:29 pm to Jeepin_Josh
If it was really meant to get the best 12 teams in, the SEC would have 5-6 teams per annum.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:31 pm to BigOrangeKen
I don’t think he is advocating adding weak teams. I think he might be alluding to the fact that you can intentionally set up the schedules of a group of potentially decent teams in your conference to more or less avoid each other in a given year. Under the prevailing conditions, this obviously increases your conference’s chances of getting more teams in.
They can absolutely do this in both the Big ten and the ACC which have 18 and 17 teams respectively. SMU played like one team in the top half of the ACC, which is a terrible football conference to begin with.
You could also do it in the SEC, but it would hurt the quality and enjoyment of the regular season, which is what CFB used to mostly be about. But it would technically be better for getting more teams in the playoffs since this committee is run by morons.
Gambetti speaks the truth but his wisdom will likely be wasted on this board, which has degraded to an alarming extent in terms of discourse.
They can absolutely do this in both the Big ten and the ACC which have 18 and 17 teams respectively. SMU played like one team in the top half of the ACC, which is a terrible football conference to begin with.
You could also do it in the SEC, but it would hurt the quality and enjoyment of the regular season, which is what CFB used to mostly be about. But it would technically be better for getting more teams in the playoffs since this committee is run by morons.
Gambetti speaks the truth but his wisdom will likely be wasted on this board, which has degraded to an alarming extent in terms of discourse.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:32 pm to gambetti
Indiana paid a million bucks to get out of an OOC game against Louisville and scheduled a bottom feeder FCS school because they saw their opportunity in a very weak conference slate to make the playoffs.
That will not be the first time a team does something like that. Hell, Michigan St just paid to get out of playing ND.
That will not be the first time a team does something like that. Hell, Michigan St just paid to get out of playing ND.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:32 pm to theballguy
quote:
If it was really meant to get the best 12 teams in, the SEC would have 5-6 teams per annum.
This is what the rantards were saying before the season. Reality is it's hard to go 10-2 in the SEC, but not really that difficult in the ACC, Big 12, Mountain West, etc.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:35 pm to gambetti
I think this will intensify behind the scene talks of the Big 10 and SEC forming a super league with 32 teams. Just like the NFL.
The conferences are not equal. For example, the SEC went 7-3 against the ACC this year. Those three wins for the ACC were against 4-8 Kentucky, 5-7 Auburn, and 7-5 Florida. No ACC team beat an SEC team who was over .500 in conference play. Georgia and South Carolina beat the ACC champion. Ole Miss and Tennessee absolutely embarrassed the ACC teams they played. Even Vandy beat Va. Tech.
Yet despite this, in the debate between including an ACC team or SEC team for the final at large bid, the ACC team with a 0-2 record against top 25 teams is who they picked.
Alabama, Ole Miss and South Carolina are all better than SMU by every metric other than final record. Had SMU played a schedule like any of those three, they wouldn’t have even been in the discussion because they would have 4 or more losses.
The conferences are not equal. For example, the SEC went 7-3 against the ACC this year. Those three wins for the ACC were against 4-8 Kentucky, 5-7 Auburn, and 7-5 Florida. No ACC team beat an SEC team who was over .500 in conference play. Georgia and South Carolina beat the ACC champion. Ole Miss and Tennessee absolutely embarrassed the ACC teams they played. Even Vandy beat Va. Tech.
Yet despite this, in the debate between including an ACC team or SEC team for the final at large bid, the ACC team with a 0-2 record against top 25 teams is who they picked.
Alabama, Ole Miss and South Carolina are all better than SMU by every metric other than final record. Had SMU played a schedule like any of those three, they wouldn’t have even been in the discussion because they would have 4 or more losses.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:36 pm to gambetti
Indiana being in shows that committee just doesn't care about OOC scheduling at all.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:40 pm to wertheimer
Should play all the traditional bowl games and conference championship games as usual. Then have a committee pick a final four, for a two round tournament in Jan.
OP (josh pate) misses the big picture.
OP (josh pate) misses the big picture.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:41 pm to BigOrangeKen
quote:
Do you suggest we we add softs teams to the conference?
Teams that recruit mostly 3* recruits, very few 4* recruits, and some 2* recruits. Teams with a lesser roster is the problem.plus lesser NIL money to compete.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:42 pm to bamabenny
1: Everyone should buyout of playing ND, frick ND and make them have to schedule all G5 or join a conference. 3 years in a row Freeman has lost at home to a dogshite team, if they only play G5 they will get penalized for it eventually. If not in the rankings, they will in the caliber of recruits they are able to get. Good luck getting a boatload of 4* players to want to play a SBC or MAC schedule.
2: The P4 needs to get some kind of consensus on OOC. Right now the Big 12 and B1G play 9 conference games while the ACC and us play 8. Some teams play 10 P4 games, others play 9. There is no incentive to have good OOC in this era if everyone is doing their own thing. I think 8 conference games + 2 cupcake games + 2 P4 OOC would be a good set up. Would also provide more data points for conference strength arguments.
2: The P4 needs to get some kind of consensus on OOC. Right now the Big 12 and B1G play 9 conference games while the ACC and us play 8. Some teams play 10 P4 games, others play 9. There is no incentive to have good OOC in this era if everyone is doing their own thing. I think 8 conference games + 2 cupcake games + 2 P4 OOC would be a good set up. Would also provide more data points for conference strength arguments.
This post was edited on 12/8/24 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:56 pm to GoGators1995
OOC scheduling had little to do with Indiana getting in at 11-1, most of the playoff bracket had easy OOC
Indiana played 2 G5 + 1 FCS
Tennessee played 2 G5 + 1 FCS + NC State (6-6)
Penn St played 2 G5 + West Virginia (6-6)
OSU played 3 G5
Notre Dame played 4 G5
Texas played 3 G5 + Michigan (7-5)
Arizona St played 2 G5 + Miss St (2-10)
Boise State played all G5 outside of Oregon
There is no incentive towards scheduling hard OOC. Clemson had the hardest OOC of any team in the playoffs and the only reason they are in the playoffs is because they won their conference
Indiana played 2 G5 + 1 FCS
Tennessee played 2 G5 + 1 FCS + NC State (6-6)
Penn St played 2 G5 + West Virginia (6-6)
OSU played 3 G5
Notre Dame played 4 G5
Texas played 3 G5 + Michigan (7-5)
Arizona St played 2 G5 + Miss St (2-10)
Boise State played all G5 outside of Oregon
There is no incentive towards scheduling hard OOC. Clemson had the hardest OOC of any team in the playoffs and the only reason they are in the playoffs is because they won their conference
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:57 pm to gambetti
quote:
The SEC up and down the conference is simply incomparably more challenging than any other conference
This just isn’t true. Hasn’t been in a while.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:59 pm to GeauxBurrow312
quote:
The P4 needs to get some kind of consensus on OOC. Right now the Big 12 and B1G play 9 conference games while the ACC and us play 8. Some teams play 10 P4 games, others play 9. There is no incentive to have good OOC in this era if everyone is doing their own thing. I think 8 conference games + 2 cupcake games + 2 P4 OOC would be a good set up. Would also provide more data points for conference strength arguments.
This will never be viable unless we’re automatically considering that all P4 conference schedules are on the same level.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:00 pm to gambetti
quote:
I genuinely have no interest spending my free time watching teams with zero quality wins play each other in a bracket.
I genuinely have no interest in watching three loss teams that couldn't even make a championship game. Especially ones that have been given the benefit of the doubt in every single instance prior to this year.
This new setup is good for the sport.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News