I'm fine with no SEC team in the CFP this year

#177
#177
eskimovol said:
Once again you’re wrong, you really need to stop claiming anything; I posted their guidelines. I guess Ohio State shouldn’t have bothered playing, and winning, the first CFP because they had to use their 3rd string qb.
Click to expand...
He’s not wrong, this is directly from the CFP website:
  • Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eskimovol
#178
#178
adam.vol said:
I haven’t read anyone mention Ohio State. If strength of record matters, their only loss will be to the number 1 team. Bama nor Georgia have that claim.

The BCS computer was better at picking than the playoff committee. We don’t know what these yahoos of the playoffs committee really consider. We only know what they claim. Why did anyone think a bunch of politicians could do it better than an algorithm? What matters most to me is that we should know what the criteria is before the season begins and ensure that the best teams, per that criteria, are selected. Was it really too difficult to pick the top 4 BCS teams?
Click to expand...

The biggest mistake was not letting the BCS do the picking. Doing this whole committee nonsense really affected the integrity of the process. Nobody actually complained about the BCS except in rare years. It was about picking only 2 teams
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, adam.vol and volbound1700
#179
#179
Chickenfarmer said:
How does the #1 team in the country for better part of three years fall to #5 after losing close game to #8 team? As much as we hate them if it was us in UGAs seat, we would be furious not getting in. Facts are facts both ways. If we beat USCe last year should we have made the dance? Take emotions out of this. This is why at least 8 team playoff is needed. UM vs TX and Washington vs FSU and Georgia and Alabama both would beat all four of the others.
Click to expand...

I don’t care about the last two years. Even before the Bama game, there were questions about them. They failed their biggest test.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700
#180
#180
Boston Vol said:
If results matter, Michigan should be in the playoff because they are 13-0.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they and the B1G as a whole, played very soft OOC. Take basketball, the non-conference scheduled is factored heavily on whether a bubble team can get in or not.

Michigan played a soft OOC schedule. You are basically rewarding teams based on record so teams can go schedule a bunch of MTSU-level teams and still get in with your argument. That shouldn't fly, they should have to play and prove themselves against quality opponents in other conferences.
 
#181
#181
AthensVol2007 said:
I’m in full agreement on the computer/algorithm. I never understand and still don’t understand the issue with an unbiased pick based on the inputed criteria. The algorithm doesn’t care what your name is, who your coach is, who your commissioner is, how much $ you generate the NCAA or conferences etc. It said based on what you fed me, here are the teams in order.
Click to expand...

USC Trojans and Media had a filled day in 2003 because the BCS got it right and left them out.
 
#182
#182
I don't see how you guys can call the ACC weak and talk trash when they went 6-4 against the SEC. It isn't like they played chump SEC teams either. The victories were against Florida (who beat the Vols), LSU, Texas A&M, and South Carolina. The SEC wins were over trash ACC teams as well. Only good SEC win was UK over Louisville.
 
#183
#183
volbound1700 said:
FSU played, arguably, the hardest schedule of all of them. SOS and results matter to me. They should be in.

Leave Michigan out. Their OOC schedule was ECU, UNLV, and Bowling Green. SEND THE MESSAGE to end these stupid G5 games.
Click to expand...
With "Conference Re-alignment" we will see fewer patsies on the schedules, but every team needs 2 breathers each year, otherwise, attrition would be awful, (as bad as it is now; just imagine.) You simply cannot play 11-12 challenging games . Used to be with a 12 game schedule, Most big schools were guaranteed 3-4 wins. .
 
#185
#185
JohnWardForever said:
With "Conference Re-alignment" we will see fewer patsies on the schedules, but every team needs 2 breathers each year, otherwise, attrition would be awful, (as bad as it is now; just imagine.) You simply cannot play 11-12 challenging games . Used to be with a 12 game schedule, Most big schools were guaranteed 3-4 wins. .
Click to expand...

Agree with 2 breathers but Alabama and Michigan both had 3 of those games, not 2. Michigan did not play a single tough game on the road. In fact, the entire B1G conference had a very soft OOC schedule. They could be the weakest Power 5 league for all we know. They did not play in any meaningful matchups.

We at least have a list of matchups between ACC, Big12, and SEC powers that we can review like FSU playing LSU, Alabama playing Texas, Miami playing Texas A&M, Missouri playing Kansas State, UK playing Louisville, etc.

The B1G is also full of Vanderbilt-type teams that would struggle to even win the MAC and Sunbelt (see Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Nebraska, Minnesota, Rutgers, Maryland, Michigan State., and Wisconsin These teams are all terrible).
 
#186
#186
FSU deserves to get in they are a power 5 undefeated team in a major conference. Alabama was lucky to beat Auburn needed the refs help to beat Georgia and Tennessee and struggled to get by South Florida and Arkansas. And finally were pretty much dominated at home by Texas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700
#187
#187
My humble opinion

1 Mich
2 Wash
3 FSU
4 Texas

UGA and Bama could (most likely would) beat all of them but going undefeated in a P5 conference has to mean something. So does regular season head to head. Ergo Texas (conf champ) over Bama (conf champ) over UGA.

If we are going strictly on paper then why even play the season?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#188
#188
I know the committee will ignore their own prior work but just a week ago they deemed Bama the 8th best team. Only one team above them lost (who they beat) - hard to say that miraculously they are now at least the 4th best team.

Seems last week's rankings are effectively meaningless which then calls into question UGA's #1 position which would be used to justify moving #8 to #4. They'd have been better off not doing any ranking until now.
 
#191
#191
volinbham said:
I know the committee will ignore their own prior work but just a week ago they deemed Bama the 8th best team. Only one team above them lost (who they beat) - hard to say that miraculously they are now at least the 4th best team.

Seems last week's rankings are effectively meaningless which then calls into question UGA's #1 position which would be used to justify moving #8 to #4. They'd have been better off not doing any ranking until now.
Click to expand...
Money talks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange931
#192
#192
volinbham said:
I know the committee will ignore their own prior work but just a week ago they deemed Bama the 8th best team. Only one team above them lost (who they beat) - hard to say that miraculously they are now at least the 4th best team.

Seems last week's rankings are effectively meaningless which then calls into question UGA's #1 position which would be used to justify moving #8 to #4. They'd have been better off not doing any ranking until now.
Click to expand...

I agree in theory. But Oregon at #5 was always absurd and tOSU at #6 was little better.
 
#193
#193
Boston Vol said:
The playoff committee has had the same four playoff teams that the BCS would have had. There are people who are still running the BCS model and it’s been exactly the same as the playoff every year since 2014.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for this? I was under the impression that the BCS algorithm was never made public.
 
#194
#194
bamawriter said:
I agree in theory. But Oregon at #5 was always absurd and tOSU at #6 was little better.
Click to expand...

Assuming the committee was playing the game of protecting potential conference champs then Oregon I could understand since they could still win out and need to be able to jump into the top 4. Agree with tOSU - they were effectively out and the committee would have done themselves a favor by putting them below Texas and Bama both who were still in the running to win their conference.
 
#195
#195
If you change the name from Alabama to, say, Arkansas we’re not even having this discussion.
 
#196
#196
volbound1700 said:
Agree with 2 breathers but Alabama and Michigan both had 3 of those games, not 2. Michigan did not play a single tough game on the road. In fact, the entire B1G conference had a very soft OOC schedule. They could be the weakest Power 5 league for all we know. They did not play in any meaningful matchups.

We at least have a list of matchups between ACC, Big12, and SEC powers that we can review like FSU playing LSU, Alabama playing Texas, Miami playing Texas A&M, Missouri playing Kansas State, UK playing Louisville, etc.

The B1G is also full of Vanderbilt-type teams that would struggle to even win the MAC and Sunbelt (see Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Nebraska, Minnesota, Rutgers, Maryland, Michigan State., and Wisconsin These teams are all terrible).
Click to expand...

Agree. The Big10 was the Big 3. Let's see the SEC was Uga, Bama, Mizzou, OMisss, Lsu, Then Ut, Uk, A&M. Well Made Point. Kentucky beating Louavil at Lou might just be the clincher for them omitting Fsu.....SO, make it Mich, Wash, Bama, Texas. STILL 2 SEC Teams----realistically.
 
#198
#198
JohnWardForever said:
Agree. The Big10 was the Big 3. Let's see the SEC was Uga, Bama, Mizzou, OMisss, Lsu, Then Ut, Uk, A&M. Well Made Point. Kentucky beating Louavil at Lou might just be the clincher for them omitting Fsu.....SO, make it Mich, Wash, Bama, Texas. STILL 2 SEC Teams----realistically.
Click to expand...

To me, it isn't just about team strength but the fact the B1G just didn't get out and play meaningful matchups. It sucks that I don't work for one of these major networks like ESPN as I would be bringing Michigan up right now. Everyone is just putting them defacto #1 when they actually have the weakest resume of any of the 5 teams.
 
#199
#199
The ONLY reason I would want other sec teams to win is it makes our wins against them look better. Otherwise I'd want them all to lose all the time.
 
#200
#200
djohnnyg said:
The ONLY reason I would want other sec teams to win is it makes our wins against them look better. Otherwise I'd want them all to lose all the time.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I am alright with Alabama and Georgia being left out. If was a different program from the SEC, maybe I would have conference pride but those teams are always there and their fanbases act like spoiled babies. I want to see them cry.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top