re: Would you believe half the teams in the CFP don't have a win against a ranked opponent.

quote:

---

If 12 is the number of teams we want, then the best system would have been four auto bids for the P4 champions, no byes, eight at-large teams based on an updated version of the old BCS formula.

---

I can only guess this system would include doing away with conference championship games? But then, Texas would have been the conference champion, and they, apparently were not the best team.

quote:

---

Honestly I don't know how any supporter of a team in the SEC (or other person who understands that all schedules are not created equally) would disagree with this.

---

I understand what you are saying, but there is no possible way you can even the schedules out Them, if you subjectively pick out who has the harder schedule it is only a guess. I mean SOS is based up rankings of teams, and that comes from human opinion. I mean, I think we can both agree that Arizona State, SMU, Boise and a couple of other teams had easier schedules, but if we are honest, we are basing that conclusion on our opinion and nothing else. Do I believe it? Absolutely. Is there a definitive way I could prove it? Absolutely not.

Look. Do I believe that Alabama is one of the 12 best teams in the country? Yes. Do I believe Alabama is one of the best 7 or 8 best teams in the country? Yes. The trouble is, Alabama lost to Tennessee, Oklahoma and Vanderbilt. You can't just wish those losses away.
Do I think Alabama is a better team than Vanderbilt and Oklahoma? Very little doubt in my mind, they are. But there was some kind of disconnect with this years team. They did not prepare properly, or they took their opponents lightly. Whatever it was, Alabama simply does not belong in the playoffs. That said half the teams in the playoffs do not belong.
I always thought 12 teams was way too many. 4 is ideal, and if people insist on expanding, then no more than 6.

You could expand the playoff to 16 or 32 teams and there will be teams arguing they were left out unjustly.

quote:

---

I understand what you are saying, but there is no possible way you can even the schedules out Them, if you subjectively pick out who has the harder schedule it is only a guess. I mean SOS is based up rankings of teams, and that comes from human opinion. I mean, I think we can both agree that Arizona State, SMU, Boise and a couple of other teams had easier schedules, but if we are honest, we are basing that conclusion on our opinion and nothing else. Do I believe it? Absolutely. Is there a definitive way I could prove it? Absolutely not.

---

I don't disagree with your points that any system of selecting the field has varying degrees of subjectivity and human inputs. What I am saying is that a computer-based model, which everyone grew accustomed to until the system was changed due to the uproar over the all-SEC 2011 final, is inherently less subjective than putting a bunch of nerds in a room who have been listening to feel good stories on Gameday all season. I therefore support the computer system, and I have since they went to the committee a decade ago.

quote:

---

Look. Do I believe that Alabama is one of the 12 best teams in the country? Yes. Do I believe Alabama is one of the best 7 or 8 best teams in the country? Yes. The trouble is, Alabama lost to Tennessee, Oklahoma and Vanderbilt. You can't just wish those losses away.
Do I think Alabama is a better team than Vanderbilt and Oklahoma? Very little doubt in my mind, they are. But there was some kind of disconnect with this years team. They did not prepare properly, or they took their opponents lightly. Whatever it was, Alabama simply does not belong in the playoffs. That said half the teams in the playoffs do not belong.
I always thought 12 teams was way too many. 4 is ideal, and if people insist on expanding, then no more than 6.

---

Holy shite, I'm starting to think you must be fricking with me. Why do you keep turning the conversation back to Alabama? I have not been white knighting for Alabama here....at all.

quote:

---

Bama not getting selected had nothing to do with their OOC schedule.

---

He never said or came close to suggesting this. You need to learn to read critically and not respond based on emotion. I feel like many of the Dawg fans who are triggered by his quote aren't taking the time to think about what he said due to some insecurity over the team involved. He was clearly talking about future scheduling and what could be inferred by the selections. Here's what he said:

quote:

---

We have said that we would need to see how strength of schedule would be evaluated by the CFP. With this outcome, we will need to asses how many P4 non-conference games make sense in the future to put us in the best position to participate in the CFP. That is not good for college football.

---

Is there really anything controversial here?

quote:

---

The context

---

Ok, I'll provide the context for you. We know the playoff committee concept began in 2014 as a result to blowback against the all-SEC final in 2011. No one was really sure heading into the season how the CFP would address such a dramatically (3x) expanded field. With the 2024 playoff field selections, we now have a data point showing us that the committee will devalue SOR relative to the former, computer-based system. You can see the simulated 2024 BCS rankings yourself if you'd like to see that confirmed. Due to all of the above, the only logical conclusion for a program that appeared to be scheduling two OOC P4 programs per year would be to reassess that strategy. Again, where's the controversy?

quote:

---

All their losses were conference games, but his railing, and his threat was against OOC scheduling.

---

Because this is the only thing he can control.