Started By
Message
re: Would you believe half the teams in the CFP don't have a win against a ranked opponent.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 9:22 am to SemperFiDawg
Posted on 12/16/24 at 9:22 am to SemperFiDawg
The actual problem is that there aren’t ever 12 teams with anything close to championship caliber resumes, talent, or depth.
0
Posted on 12/16/24 at 9:41 am to SouthernInsanity
quote:
CFP Championship probably needs to be broken down further... not by Division I, II, etc... but probably by having CFP Championships for the Power 5 and Group of 5, etc.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. We may even have to break this down eventually based on NIL ability of universities.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 9:53 am to SemperFiDawg
True, no ranked wins but a couple of them did beat Oklahoma, that has to count for something don't it?
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:07 am to AUTiger789
quote:2 things
Had Bama not caught every break ever…. Literally EVER… then they probably would have gotten in. But after 2011, 2017, 2023, etc. the committee had pulled Bama’s card one too many times to do it again with a resume THAT bad.
Who won the national title in 2011, in dominating fashion I might add?
Who won the national title in 2017, winning the semi-final in dominating fashion I might add?
You say adding Bama in those years was bad, if it was a bad choice they wouldn’t have won it all. Your problem is they won it all.
2023, only choice was Bama over Georgia. FSU wasn’t truly in the conversation. I thought Georgia was the better team, but Georgia wasn’t getting in because of a convincing win by Bama there. Lost in OT to the national champions. Can’t really say they didn’t deserve to be there. Again it’s just your jealousy showing.
Bama had a better resume than anyone not named Georgia or Oregon. Hate it all you want, but that’s a fact. Yes they had 2 losses against .500 teams. You ignore their wins.
The committee pointedly said your wins don’t matter, only if you’re a conference champion and play a weak schedule.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:47 am to SouthernInsanity
quote:
CFP Championship probably needs to be broken down further... not by Division I, II, etc... but probably by having CFP Championships for the Power 5 and Group of 5, etc.
The NCAA has qualifications for being an FBS program. There is a LOT of money in the CFP. As soon as you start excluding qualifying programs from access to the money, they will sue. Even changing the qualifications at this point would probably lead to protracted legal actions.
I seem to recall a G5 program threatening to sue over the BCS formula in the 90s. It's not as simple as everyone seems to want to believe.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 11:00 am to SemperFiDawg
Disgraceful…..
Posted on 12/16/24 at 11:14 am to llfshoals
quote:
Who won the national title in 2017, winning the semi-final in dominating fashion I might add?
His point is any team not winning the Conf. Champ wouldn't have made the 4 team playoff.......any team not named Bama. There's no arguing Bama has benefitted from bias. Notre Dame has. Bama has. There are a few more that have over my last 60 years. It is what it is, but I'm glad to see it's not as bad as it has been.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 11:56 am to SemperFiDawg
quote:
HALF
Notre Dame, Texas, Indiana, Penn State, Boise State, and SMU have played a combined total of 65 games and not a win against a ranked opponent in the mix.
Meanwhile UGA is currently 4-0 against playoff teams, 3 of those wins coming away from home.
In defense of half the teams in the playoffs many only played one ranked team all season so it was damned difficult to beat a ranked team for them unlike some teams in the field who played several ranked teams....
It is truly a travesty that 3 of the 6 are in the playoff. Penn State and Notre Dame may or may not be pretty good, Texas is certainly pretty good, the other 3 are not. They'd lose 80% of the time against Alabama, LSU, late season Florida, South Carolina, LSU, ATM, Ole Miss and Missouri. No one would be shocked if Auburn beat anyone of them and Vandy would probably be .500 against them....
Posted on 12/16/24 at 12:18 pm to AwgustaDawg
But Texas did play and win against three teams that were ranked when the game was played. The three failed to stay in the top 25, so Texas helped them drop a bit.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 12:59 pm to SemperFiDawg
Kentucky had one more than they did! And we sure as hell don't belong.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 1:10 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Remember when Greg Byrne said leaving out Bama, Ole Miss, and South Carolina would affect future OOC scheduling decisions?
This is why.
I'm not sure i understand the reasoning.
Alabama played:
Western Kentucky
USF
Wisconsin
Mercer
Ole Miss played:
Furman
Middle Tennessee
Wake Forest
Georgia Southern
South Carolina played:
Old Dominion
Akron
Wofford
Clemson
SC is not going to stop playing Clemson.
Which of those OOC games do you consider so tough that any of those teams will steer clear in the future? Who do you think they will replace them with to make it easier? And they did not lose to any of them, so....explain why they would schedule "easier" teams.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 1:11 pm to SemperFiDawg
quote:
HALF
Notre Dame, Texas, Indiana, Penn State, Boise State, and SMU have played a combined total of 65 games and not a win against a ranked opponent in the mix.
That's insane.
Let's hope the are all exposed in the playoffs.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 1:23 pm to llfshoals
quote:
Yes they had 2 losses against .500 teams.
You don't ignore their wins, but you also can't ignore their losses....and they were brutal. You can't put out the "FSU had an injury to one player, so they shouldn't go to the playoffs even though they were undefeated", then rely only on resume to argue Alabama should ave made it with two brutal losses. If resume counts, then the entire resume counts. Alabama's entire resume was not good.
You lost to two bad teams and another team that made the playoffs.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 1:35 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
As soon as you start excluding qualifying programs from access to the money, they will sue. Even changing the qualifications at this point would probably lead to protracted legal actions.
Then make each CFP slot a guaranteed slot for the conference champs. That would leave what, one slot left? Then throw every 3rd ranked team per conference into a lottery draw.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 1:44 pm to DawgsLife
quote:They were, not sugar coating that at all.
You don't ignore their wins, but you also can't ignore their losses....and they were brutal.
The question becomes solely “your losses” which was my point is the committee clearly stated that’s the only metric they considered.
quote:Beat the #2 seed. Beat teams ranked at the end of the regular season #15 and #19. Name the teams with 3 top 20 wins who is in the playoff. It’s a really short list.
If resume counts, then the entire resume counts. Alabama's entire resume was not good. You lost to two bad teams and another team that made the playoffs.
Yes, entire resume counts. Bama has worse losses but much better wins. You seem determined not to care about wins. Why is that?
Posted on 12/16/24 at 2:07 pm to Septiger
quote:
I watched Boise State take Oregon to the wire , at Oregon earlier in the season.
Oregon sux? I mean, they barely beat OSU and UM handled OSU. It's Georgia's to lose, and if they do, Tex would be the favorite, at least in my humble opinion.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 2:18 pm to Buckeye06
Boise's QB has 30+ TD passes
Posted on 12/16/24 at 2:27 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Which of those OOC games do you consider so tough that any of those teams will steer clear in the future? Who do you think they will replace them with to make it easier? And they did not lose to any of them, so....explain why they would schedule "easier" teams.
It’s puzzling that you’re struggling so much with this concept, which is really straightforward. Alabama, for instance, has an upcoming season where they play both WVU and Ohio State, and another where they play both Ok State and Ohio State. This year the committee strongly indicated that SOS isn’t very important in the 12 team playoff, so why not replace games like the above with more Mercers? Doing this will allow the team to remain focused on the conference opponents. Where are you struggling here? It’s really straightforward. Do you have the attention span of a dog?
Posted on 12/16/24 at 2:35 pm to MrGumshoes
quote:
Oregon sux? I mean, they barely beat OSU and UM handled OSU. It's Georgia's to lose, and if they do, Tex would be the favorite, at least in my humble opinion.
Oregon beat Michigan pretty bad in Ann Arbor.
Oregon played Boise early... the had a tight game against Whisky...
They handled their schedule rather easily.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 2:35 pm to llfshoals
quote:
They were, not sugar coating that at all.
The question becomes solely “your losses” which was my point is the committee clearly stated that’s the only metric they considered.
It wasn't solely your losses. But when you have 3 losses and teo of them are brutal.....losses have to play a large part. I mean, if a team beats the @1 and #2 ranked teams but they lose 4 games, do you ignore the losses because they had two big wins? They both balance each other out. No. Indiana, ND, SMU, Clemson etc did not have as big wins as Alabama. but they also didn't have as big losses as Alabama.
Clemson had the worst losses, but they won their conference, and their worst loss was to a 4 loss team. The other teams did not have any good wins, but they also won the games they were supposed to win.
I said it in another thread. Had Alabama lost to Georgia and beaten either Oklahoma or Vanderbilt, you would have made the playoffs. One loss is an upset and a fluke. Two bad losses sends a red flag up that there are problems. Big problems. That said, I would chalk it up to a new coach with somebody else's players and Alabama will do better next year and be ready to rumble the year after that. But that is a guess and does not help Alabama's argument this year.
quote:
Beat the #2 seed. Beat teams ranked at the end of the regular season #15 and #19. Name the teams with 3 top 20 wins who is in the playoff. It’s a really short list.
A short list, but a list nonetheless. Name the team with two losses to 6-6 or worse teams that made the playoffs. They don't exist. In fact only one team with three losses made the playoffs and they won their conference.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News