Orange Bowl at Worst. Sugar a possibility.

[loservol]

That’s never the way it works. Cincinnati certainly wasn’t one of the best 4 teams last year. If it’s close, politics comes into play. I might be wrong but I’m pretty sure the committee will do anything to avoid having 2 SEC teams and 2 Big 10 teams in there. Optics would not be good with an 11 and 1 TCU team that lost in an extra game in OT.

Common sense > optics and feels.

 

[Delmar]

Common sense > optics and feels.

Might be. But I’ll believe it when I see it that they put GA, Bama, MI and OSU in there. Just an opinion but I don’t see it.

 

[loservol]

Might be. But I’ll believe it when I see it that they put GA, Bama, MI and OSU in there. Just an opinion but I don’t see it.

I really don't see it either.

 

[sjt18]

That's not how it works and you know it. We've been bragging about beating 5 ranked teams all year. It's about what they are ranked when you play them.

No 2 loss team deserves to get in. I don't care if they losr on the last play of the game. Bama should have lost to Texas and Texas a&m if the refs make the correct calls in those games.

I haven't and it is flat out stupid to do so. Being "ranked" too high early in the season doesn't make them a quality win.

I have no power to say who gets in or doesn't and suspect you don't either. If I were on the committee then "best team" would at least provide some balance vs record. TCU isn't one of the best 4 teams in the country. I don't think they're top 7. They may not be top 10. Their WEAK Big 12 schedule was rounded out by a P5 OOC contest... vs Colorado.

They're very likely a 7-5 team if they play in the SEC.

 

[jasonvol18]

If TCU loses, Bama and Ohio State slide into top 4.

Nope..TCU isn't dropping out of the top 4.

 

[Carp]

I haven't and it is flat out stupid to do so. Being "ranked" too high early in the season doesn't make them a quality win.

I have no power to say who gets in or doesn't and suspect you don't either. If I were on the committee then "best team" would at least provide some balance vs record. TCU isn't one of the best 4 teams in the country. I don't think they're top 7. They may not be top 10. Their WEAK Big 12 schedule was rounded out by a P5 OOC contest... vs Colorado.

They're very likely a 7-5 team if they play in the SEC.

They played Texas just as well Bama did. Their defense actually played Texas a lot better than Bama did.

 

[OrangeInKy]

They played Texas just as well Bama did. Their defense actually played Texas a lot better than Bama did.

and Texas was w/o Ewers most of the Bama game. TCU played them much better than trash Bama. Bama is trash. I hate Bama. Garbage Bama.

 

[StickMan]

No, that's not what I said. I also think Michigan is a strong team. TCU scraped by their opponents in the Big 12. They didn't dominate. They simply won by default of the other team sucking. And then they lost today.

But yes, I think the national champion should be one of the best teams in the country. TCU obviously isn't one of the best teams and will inevitably get steamrolled in the playoffs. This is why going to 12 team playoffs in necessary. We won't have to mess with this BS. We can just let teams like TCU embarrass themselves by teams ranked lower than them

It looks like a good chance Michigan and TCU will be matched up in a semifinal. If so, I think it will be a close, hard fought game. In fact, I might pick TCU. What people won't acknowledge is that there are no dominate teams outside of Georgia, when they're focused.

 

[StickMan]

I haven't and it is flat out stupid to do so. Being "ranked" too high early in the season doesn't make them a quality win.

I have no power to say who gets in or doesn't and suspect you don't either. If I were on the committee then "best team" would at least provide some balance vs record. TCU isn't one of the best 4 teams in the country. I don't think they're top 7. They may not be top 10. Their WEAK Big 12 schedule was rounded out by a P5 OOC contest... vs Colorado.

They're very likely a 7-5 team if they play in the SEC.

I get tired of that argument. The fact is, nobody knows what their record would be in the SEC. So, the fact that they're in the Big 12 should automatically eliminate them? I just think that's not right. The only real data point we have for comparison between them and Alabama is common opponent (Texas), and TCU wins.

 

[sjt18]

I get tired of that argument. The fact is, nobody knows what their record would be in the SEC. So, the fact that they're in the Big 12 should automatically eliminate them? I just think that's not right. The only real data point we have for comparison between them and Alabama is common opponent (Texas), and TCU wins.

Sorry you are tired of sound reasoning. Do we know "exactly" what their record would be? No. Would they be 12-1... or 11-2... or even 10-3? No. They have neither the first line talent nor the depth.

 

[sjt18]

They played Texas just as well Bama did. Their defense actually played Texas a lot better than Bama did.

And? What did UT do to Bama's D?

But let's just cut to the chase. Are you really suggesting that TCU going 12-1 in the Big 12 is equivalent to 12-1 in the SEC or even 10-2? Are you saying that if the schedules were swapped that TCU would be 12-1?

 

[loservol]

And? What did UT do to Bama's D?

But let's just cut to the chase. Are you really suggesting that TCU going 12-1 in the Big 12 is equivalent to 12-1 in the SEC or even 10-2? Are you saying that if the schedules were swapped that TCU would be 12-1?

I don't even know if they could go 12-1 in the Big 10.

 

[vavolfan6]

It looks like a good chance Michigan and TCU will be matched up in a semifinal. If so, I think it will be a close, hard fought game. In fact, I might pick TCU. What people won't acknowledge is that there are no dominate teams outside of Georgia, when they're focused.

Michigan is essentially getting a bye week. Pretty unfair if you ask me. I think most UGA fans would prefer to play TCU. Sucks the football committee let's bad teams rank high because they win a bad comference. Michigan will win by 15+

 

[Carp]

And? What did UT do to Bama's D?

But let's just cut to the chase. Are you really suggesting that TCU going 12-1 in the Big 12 is equivalent to 12-1 in the SEC or even 10-2? Are you saying that if the schedules were swapped that TCU would be 12-1?

But we don't know, so what is the use in playing what if's? We do know that against like opponents, TCU won by 7 and Bama won by 1, by the luck of the Refs. You are aware that good teams exist outside the SEC don't you?

UGA played the easiest schedule among all the Top 4, and their toughest games were at home. Whose to say they wouldn't have 2 or more losses if they played a tougher schedule? We can play these but if's game all day. The fact of the matter is, Bama lost 2 for their first 12 games. TCU lost zero. Then TCU had to play an extra game and barely lost that in OT. And realistically, they probably should have won if the Refs don't blow 2 goalline calls that both should have been TD's.

I'm quite certain Bama is the more talented team. But you play the games for a reason.

 

[StickMan]

Sorry you are tired of sound reasoning. Do we know "exactly" what their record would be? No. Would they be 12-1... or 11-2... or even 10-3? No. They have neither the first line talent nor the depth.

On the converse, Tennessee wouldn't have gone 12-0 with TCU's schedule. They would have laid at least one egg. It's extremely difficult to go undefeated, even against a moderately difficult schedule. I don't think they should be punished for not being in the SEC. And, for the record, I was rooting hard for them to lose, but they didn't. Yeah, they did in game 13, but again shouldn't be punished for winning the conference and having to play a top 10 team that they had already beat.

 

[87&91ALUM]

if we beat UGA and USCe, we would be undeniably #1. We didn’t, be thankful for a good bowl pairing, UGA is the best team in the Country, and we had an outstanding season in comparison to other seasons.

 

[EZE]

Michigan is essentially getting a bye week. Pretty unfair if you ask me. I think most UGA fans would prefer to play TCU. Sucks the football committee let's bad teams rank high because they win a bad comference. Michigan will win by 15+

Oh, I wouldn’t bet the house on that. TCU likely couldn’t compete with the athletes of Ga, OhSt or Al. But, I think they will match up decently against Mi. Mi likely wins, but I don’t think it is a guarantee at all.

 

[sjt18]

But we don't know, so what is the use in playing what if's? We do know that against like opponents, TCU won by 7 and Bama won by 1, by the luck of the Refs. You are aware that good teams exist outside the SEC don't you?

Yes. We do KNOW that the talent and depth of talent in the SEC is significantly more than the Big 12. That's not disputable and it translates directly to the difficulty of Bama's schedule and UT's and TCU's.

So just answer the question. You are either being obtuse for no reason or you actually believe that going 12-1 in the Big 12 right now is equal to doing the same in the SEC or Pac12 for that matter.

UGA played the easiest schedule among all the Top 4, and their toughest games were at home. Whose to say they wouldn't have 2 or more losses if they played a tougher schedule?

Oh? You think UGA's schedule was easier than TCU's? Seriously? OSU's or Michigan's? Outside of each other they both played PSU who isn't very good and OSU played ND early in the season. Where are those other tough opponents?

We can play these but if's game all day. The fact of the matter is, Bama lost 2 for their first 12 games. TCU lost zero. Then TCU had to play an extra game and barely lost that in OT.

So why not make a case for undefeated Holy Cross? I mean since all competition is equal and all that counts is wins and losses they and even the mighty Jackrabbits of South Dakota St deserve to be in the CFP, right?

And realistically, they probably should have won if the Refs don't blow 2 goalline calls that both should have been TD's.

You still have not answered the question. Who is a better team? Who would be favored? Would TCU be favored over Bama or UT if Hooker were healthy? The competitiveness of the better conferences this year produced a lot of two loss teams. Those better conferences are the SEC and Pac12. The Pac12 is a MUCH better and deeper conference than the Big12... and won't have a representative at all.

I'm not arguing so much for Bama as against TCU and the idea that just because they're a one loss team they should get in. They shouldn't.

I'm quite certain Bama is the more talented team. But you play the games for a reason.

Which would matter a lot more if the schedules were equally difficult.

For what little it is worth, UT and USC deserve to be in more than TCU too.

 

[sjt18]

On the converse, Tennessee wouldn't have gone 12-0 with TCU's schedule. They would have laid at least one egg. It's extremely difficult to go undefeated, even against a moderately difficult schedule.

Very, very doubtful. Two primary reasons. Playing a schedule with talented, difficult opponents every week exposes depth. Two, playing a schedule without those "peak" teams like UGA allows for some dips in performance. UT was pretty beaten up by the time they played USCe. It is what it is but TCU's schedule doesn't challenge your depth like that.

Just from a record perspective alone TCU played:

K-State 10-3 twice going 1-1
Texas 8-4
Colorado 1-11
TTU 7-5
Ok St 7-5
Baylor 6-6
OU 6-6
KU 6-6
WVU 5-7
ISU 4-8

UT by comparison played:

UGA 13-0
Bama 10-2
LSU 10-3
Pitt 8-4
USCe 8-4
UK 7-5
UF 6-6
MU 6-6
Vandy 5-7
BSU 5-7
Akron 2-10

There's really no comparison between the difficulty of UT's schedule and TCU's. From a talent comparison according to 247's roster composite UT played #1, #2, #8, #12, #20, and #26. TCU played #6 and #9. None of their other opponents are top 30 in talent.

So yeah. My money would be on UT to run their schedule... and score even more points... and look like they had a better D. Competition exposed UT's D and wore it down.

I don't think they should be punished for not being in the SEC.

So difficult of a conference and a schedule should not be considered when determining who should be in a playoff ostensibly made up of the best 4 teams?

And, for the record, I was rooting hard for them to lose, but they didn't. Yeah, they did in game 13, but again shouldn't be punished for winning the conference and having to play a top 10 team that they had already beat.

But UT, Bama, and USC SHOULD be punished for playing a much more difficult schedule?

 

[StickMan]

Very, very doubtful. Two primary reasons. Playing a schedule with talented, difficult opponents every week exposes depth. Two, playing a schedule without those "peak" teams like UGA allows for some dips in performance. UT was pretty beaten up by the time they played USCe. It is what it is but TCU's schedule doesn't challenge your depth like that.

Just from a record perspective alone TCU played:

K-State 10-3 twice going 1-1
Texas 8-4
Colorado 1-11
TTU 7-5
Ok St 7-5
Baylor 6-6
OU 6-6
KU 6-6
WVU 5-7
ISU 4-8

UT by comparison played:

UGA 13-0
Bama 10-2
LSU 10-3
Pitt 8-4
USCe 8-4
UK 7-5
UF 6-6
MU 6-6
Vandy 5-7
BSU 5-7
Akron 2-10

There's really no comparison between the difficulty of UT's schedule and TCU's. From a talent comparison according to 247's roster composite UT played #1, #2, #8, #12, #20, and #26. TCU played #6 and #9. None of their other opponents are top 30 in talent.

So yeah. My money would be on UT to run their schedule... and score even more points... and look like they had a better D. Competition exposed UT's D and wore it down.

So difficult of a conference and a schedule should not be considered when determining who should be in a playoff ostensibly made up of the best 4 teams?

But UT, Bama, and USC SHOULD be punished for playing a much more difficult schedule?

Those are valid arguments and I don't necessarily disagree. I estimate that there are 3 SEC teams that are better than TCU. But, I don't agree that the committee can simply choose who they feel like are the 4 best teams, regardless of actual game results. Why even include the Big 12 at all, if a team can go undefeated and still has no chance to get in? I just don't think that's how it works.

 

[sjt18]

Those are valid arguments and I don't necessarily disagree. I estimate that there are 3 SEC teams that are better than TCU. But, I don't agree that the committee can simply choose who they feel like are the 4 best teams, regardless of actual game results. Why even include the Big 12 at all, if a team can go undefeated and still has no chance to get in? I just don't think that's how it works.

So you just ignore competition? That can't be the way it works or your playoff is a complete sham. UT's actual game results is that they beat teams that were better than anyone TCU played... and lost to a couple of teams that in reality would have likely beaten TCU and anyone TCU has played.

The 12 team playoff will resolve some of this argument. Obviously not all since the first few teams out will always argue they should have been in.

This year especially I think quality of competition should have played a role. Two teams actually played their way in. Then you had about 6 teams or so who all had just as good of an argument as the others.

I don't think OSU deserves to be in either. They played a weak schedule and lost to the only good team they played... badly. The Big 10 was abnormally weak this year. The West flat out sucked. PSU as the 3rd best team in the East was a joke.

The SEC was strong and the Pac12.

 

[JoAllan]

So you just ignore competition? That can't be the way it works or your playoff is a complete sham. UT's actual game results is that they beat teams that were better than anyone TCU played... and lost to a couple of teams that in reality would have likely beaten TCU and anyone TCU has played.

The 12 team playoff will resolve some of this argument. Obviously not all since the first few teams out will always argue they should have been in.

This year especially I think quality of competition should have played a role. Two teams actually played their way in. Then you had about 6 teams or so who all had just as good of an argument as the others.

I don't think OSU deserves to be in either. They played a weak schedule and lost to the only good team they played... badly. The Big 10 was abnormally weak this year. The West flat out sucked. PSU as the 3rd best team in the East was a joke.

The SEC was strong and the Pac12.

the SEC will always have a strong SOS

However according to ESPN:
TCU has the 25th SOS
Georgia has the 36th SOS
USC has the 38th SOS
Michigan has the 37th SOS
OSU has the 39th SOS
Clemson has the 58th SOS
K-ST has the 16th SOS

TCU has a best SOS of anyone in the playoff

 

[sjt18]

the SEC will always have a strong SOS

However according to ESPN:
TCU has the 25th SOS
Georgia has the 36th SOS
USC has the 38th SOS
Michigan has the 37th SOS
OSU has the 39th SOS
Clemson has the 58th SOS
K-ST has the 16th SOS

TCU has a best SOS of anyone in the playoff

They base that off of what? Wins and losses, correct? So K-State is a better championship opponent (and champion) than LSU? UT? Bama?

Out of the top 6 teams in the SEC, which would not be where TCU is or better if they had their schedule? That's UGA, UT, USCe, LSU, Bama, and MSU. I feel fairly confident that Ole Miss would have a pretty good shot at doing so.

Maybe you can explain how UGA plays Oregon while TCU plays Colorado and the Horny Toads have the harder schedule? Who on TCU's schedule was as good as UT or LSU? It is very possible that their "SOS" was enhanced by playing an additional conference game... albeit in a weak conference.

 

[Jeff Clark]

Going to Miami for New Years is so sweet

 

[Carp]

Yes. We do KNOW that the talent and depth of talent in the SEC is significantly more than the Big 12. That's not disputable and it translates directly to the difficulty of Bama's schedule and UT's and TCU's.

So just answer the question. You are either being obtuse for no reason or you actually believe that going 12-1 in the Big 12 right now is equal to doing the same in the SEC or Pac12 for that matter.

Oh? You think UGA's schedule was easier than TCU's? Seriously? OSU's or Michigan's? Outside of each other they both played PSU who isn't very good and OSU played ND early in the season. Where are those other tough opponents?

So why not make a case for undefeated Holy Cross? I mean since all competition is equal and all that counts is wins and losses they and even the mighty Jackrabbits of South Dakota St deserve to be in the CFP, right?

You still have not answered the question. Who is a better team? Who would be favored? Would TCU be favored over Bama or UT if Hooker were healthy? The competitiveness of the better conferences this year produced a lot of two loss teams. Those better conferences are the SEC and Pac12. The Pac12 is a MUCH better and deeper conference than the Big12... and won't have a representative at all.

I'm not arguing so much for Bama as against TCU and the idea that just because they're a one loss team they should get in. They shouldn't.

Which would matter a lot more if the schedules were equally difficult.

For what little it is worth, UT and USC deserve to be in more than TCU too.

1. Texas A&M went 5-7 after pulling one of the best classes ever (maybe the BEST class ever). And they've finished no worse then 9th in recruiting over the last few years. Recruiting rankings don't win games. That's why we play the games.

2. We aren't talking about going 12-0 in the SEC. We are talking about going 12-1 vs 10-2. 12-1 the Big 12 is absolutely better than going 10-2 in the SEC, especially when you consider TCU was 12-0 before their conf. title game. You're punishing TCU for playing an extra game.

3. Which team is more talented is irrelevant. That's why you play the games. We're not nearly as talented as Bama is, but we still won.