Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:51 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Before it was..."We need a playoff!"
I can't think of a single year in which people felt like the #6,7,or 8 ranked team would have a legit shot at winning the Championship.
Exactly true. And by adding teams all you are doing is pushing that debate further down the line.
Look at 2017. #8,9,10,11 were 10-2. #7 was 10-3. UCF was undefeated at 12.
In 2016, #8,9,10,11,12,13 were 9-3/10-3. Who gets in?
In 2015, 8-11 were 10-2/11-2.
At some point, there has to be a cutoff. In my opinion, it is easier to decide who is #4, than who is #8. Usually only a couple of teams have a top 4 resume. Expand it to 8 and now you've got 5 separate debates for who is the 8th best team, and even more weight carried by "brand" and "eye test"
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:56 am to TidalSurge1
quote:
Strength of Record: Oklahoma 15 | Baylor 5
FPI Rankings: Oklahoma 7 | Baylor 21
SP+ Rankings: Oklahoma 4 | Baylor 15
Baylor will play Oklahoma soon, maybe twice.
FPI is an ESPiN made up ranking with so much bias it is ridiculous. It should not be mentioned in any serious football conversation.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:56 am to nicholastiger
quote:
don't think Ohio St makes it through unbeaten to begin with.
They won’t have to if the loss is to Missagain at the end of the year. They will have had the East wrapped up and awaiting the west winner.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:02 am to BHMKyle
The way I hope the committee is doing ranking is based on an earnest evaluation of how teams are performing in the games.
It's fair for teams like Oklahoma, Auburn, Florida, and the pac12 teams to be ranked where they are because we have some solid data points (tough matchups) to evaluate on. win or less, we KNOW Oregon is a good football team because of how they played and nearly beat Auburn. Minnesota and Baylor are fairly uncertain. They have won all their games but the in game performances are inconsistent.
Baylor comfortably beat Kansas st and oklahoma st, both away, but could VERY easily have lost to Iowa st and Texas Tech. Minnesota likewise has their arguably best win vs an FCS team, and went to the wire with georgia southern, and double OT with fresno st. The toughest team they have played in the big10 so far is Illinois. Penn st is probably going to murder them.
It's fair for teams like Oklahoma, Auburn, Florida, and the pac12 teams to be ranked where they are because we have some solid data points (tough matchups) to evaluate on. win or less, we KNOW Oregon is a good football team because of how they played and nearly beat Auburn. Minnesota and Baylor are fairly uncertain. They have won all their games but the in game performances are inconsistent.
Baylor comfortably beat Kansas st and oklahoma st, both away, but could VERY easily have lost to Iowa st and Texas Tech. Minnesota likewise has their arguably best win vs an FCS team, and went to the wire with georgia southern, and double OT with fresno st. The toughest team they have played in the big10 so far is Illinois. Penn st is probably going to murder them.
This post was edited on 11/6/19 at 10:03 am
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:05 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Oregon 59 FSU 20
Clemson 37 Oklahoma 17
Alabama 38 Michigan State 0
Clemson 31 Ohio St. 0
Alabama 24 Washington 7
Clemson 30 ND 3
The only "good" first round games have been Alabama vs Ohio State in 2014 and Georgia vs Oklahoma in 2017. Alabama vs Oklahoma in 2018 wasn't a blowout though.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:07 am to i am dan
quote:
Ohio State is ranked higher in advanced metrics and has a better SOS. They also beat their top 2 opponents by 73 points.
They have a better resume
Wisconsin doesn't seem to be what we thought. Maybe not a good team afterall.
If LSU or Bama beat a top 15 team by 30 points, the fans on this board would be saying they were the best team in the country bar none. Maybe it means OSU is really damn good. Maybe as you said, it means Wisky isn't as good as anticipated.
In some ways, playing closer games makes both teams "seem" better. If OSU/Wisky had been a 10 point game, people may be like "Wisky kept it close against OSU" in the same way Auburn and UF are getting credit for keeping it close against LSU.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:11 am to Buckeye06
At this point, who cares? OSU has Michigan and Penn St. to contend with. Alabama and LSU have each other and Georgia to contend with, so all this talk to this point is moot!
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:12 am to BHMKyle
A perfect example:
Look at Texas and Okie St... Texas won the head to head. They have the same record. Texas has better losses. Why is Okie St ranked and Texas not ranked?
Look at Texas and Okie St... Texas won the head to head. They have the same record. Texas has better losses. Why is Okie St ranked and Texas not ranked?
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:12 am to TheCaterpillar
Haha, I’m sorry but why even play the games then? If they don’t really look at resumes and just go by who they “think” will win on a neutral field then just skip the season.
“Yeah we know they haven’t shown evidence of this by their performance but we think they should.....”
Gah that’s ridiculous
“Yeah we know they haven’t shown evidence of this by their performance but we think they should.....”
Gah that’s ridiculous
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:13 am to Jebadeb
quote:
It's supposed to be the best teams, right? Right now the committee believes that Oklahoma is better than Baylor.
Yes. And I'm sure if you reversed the resumes and Oklahoma was 8-0 and Baylor was 7-1, they'd have Baylor ranked ahead of the Sooners despite the loss?... not a chance.
That's the problem. The resume doesn't matter, just the brand.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:14 am to BHMKyle
I fricking hate Baylor, but this is correct.
The influence of brand names and also preseason polls is entirely too heavy.
The influence of brand names and also preseason polls is entirely too heavy.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:18 am to coachcrisp
quote:
so all this talk to this point is moot!
I think no matter who you had doing the rankings- computers, committee, coaches, media- people would gripe. That's why I wish there were no rankings until mid-October at the earliest and preferably until now.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:20 am to coachcrisp
quote:
At this point, who cares? OSU has Michigan and Penn St. to contend with. Alabama and LSU have each other and Georgia to contend with, so all this talk to this point is moot!
This year it will work out, yes.
There will come a year where it won't, though. Where the major conferences will have winners with identical records. Where a bunch of teams from a conference will all have 1 loss to each other.
Imagine this scenario:
Alabama beats LSU, loses to Auburn - 11-1
Auburn loses to LSU, beats Alabama - 11-1
LSU loses to Alabama, beats Auburn - 11-1
The SEC has a very specific set of criteria on how to settle this. We'll say, for the sake of argument, that LSU makes the SECCG through the use of the last tie-breaker criteria. (Alabama, thanks to Tennessee sucking, is first out due to record of SEC East foes - then head-to-head has LSU in).
The committee, however, sees Auburn lose to a 2-loss Georgia team in a rematch.
11-2 Auburn, 11-1 Alabama, 11-1 LSU, 11-2 Georgia
Say you have a 13-0 Clemson with the lowest SOS of all teams
A 1-loss Oklahoma team and a 1-loss Baylor team
A 2-loss Penn State with a B1G title over 1-loss OSU
A 2-loss PAC12 champ (but with two OOC P5 wins over top 25 teams)
Who goes to the playoffs?
We shouldn't ignore possible scenarios until they happen.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:21 am to BHMKyle
The criteria is there is no criteria
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:21 am to skrayper
quote:
The only "good" first round games have been Alabama vs Ohio State in 2014 and Georgia vs Oklahoma in 2017.
This is true. But maybe the games would not competitive because the wrong teams were chosen by the Committee.
I'm just saying.... If you made a rule that you had to win your Conference to get in, it would provide a lot more clarity and it eliminates the chance of bias coming into play. You could still allow for 3 at-large teams to make the Playoff.
Let's say the season plays out like Vegas would predict it to. Here's how the Playoff would look:
SEC Champ: Alabama
BIG 10 Champ: OHio State
BIG 12 Champ: Oklahoma
ACC Champ: Clemson
PAC 12 Champ: Oregon
Here's how the Playoff would look for Round 1 (home field advantage assigned to higher ranked team):
#8 Georgia at #1 Ohio State
#7 Penn St. at #2 Alabama
#6 LSU at #3 Clemson
#5 Oregon at #4 Oklahoma
That would be awesome. If you based the rankings/seeding on computer rankings, you could also through in a caveat that if a Group of 5 team makes the Top 12, they could get an at-large bid.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:22 am to DawgsLife
quote:Eveything you just posted shows exactly why they need more teams
I can't think of a single year in which people felt like the #6,7,or 8 ranked team would have a legit shot at winning the Championship. You could maybe make an argument for a #5 team one year. In more years than not the top 4 teams are the only teams that have a shot, and in some years the top 3 could be argued. Remember blowouts like:
Oregon 59 FSU 20
Clemson 37 Oklahoma 17
Alabama 38 Michigan State 0
Clemson 31 Ohio St. 0
Alabama 24 Washington 7
Clemson 30 ND 3
Oregon 59 FSU 20- TCU, who was left out the playoffs, blew the fricking doors off of Ole Miss in the bowl game, the team that beat Bama....
Clemson 37 Oklahoma 17-Ohio st, the defending champs with only one loss, clearly were better than Mich St
Alabama 38 Michigan State 0-Ohio st, the defending champs with only one loss, clearly were better than Mich St
Clemson 31 Ohio St. 0-Maybe Penn state, the actual big 10 champs who beat OSU, should have had an opportunity
Alabama 24 Washington 7
Clemson 30 ND 3-Ohio State would have blown the doors off ND as well
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:24 am to XbengalTiger
quote:
Look at Texas and Okie St... Texas won the head to head. They have the same record. Texas has better losses. Why is Okie St ranked and Texas not ranked?
I agree with this. In my Playoff Projection I had Texas A&M, Texas, and Oklahoma State all included as 3-loss teams.... in that order.
At 5-3, Texas should be slightly ahead of OK State because of the head-to-head.
And the Aggies have lost to the current #3, #5, and #11 teams. Does anyone think Boise State, Navy, or SMU wouldn't have also lost to those three?
And likewise, had A&M played Boise State's schedule, wouldn't they be undefeated? Boise is 7-1 yet they still made the rankings.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:24 am to PT24-7
quote:
Haha, I’m sorry but why even play the games then? If they don’t really look at resumes and just go by who they “think” will win on a neutral field then just skip the season.
“Yeah we know they haven’t shown evidence of this by their performance but we think they should.....”
Gah that’s ridiculous
Very well said.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 10:25 am to BHMKyle
It's all out of convenience. The committee has given themselves the flexibility to pick whatever argument they want to make their point.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News